1425 users online (288 members and 1137 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 11 of 38 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 562
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    83
    Roy,

    Joubert was one of the worst characters I’ve ever read about. He’s not as infamous as many of his ilk only because (thankfully) his death toll was modest compared to other serial killers of greater renown. That is small comfort to his victims’ families, of course. He was perhaps stopped before he otherwise would have been because in the case of Danny Eberlie the rope he had tied the boy up with was foreign manufactured and rare in the United States. Upon investigation, it turned out that it was made in South Korea and sold to the United States military. Joubert had been at the time in the Air Force (and not the Army as I previously stated in error). This was a rare and careless mistake made by a serial killer of his ilk. (Joubert did not have a bondage fetish. Danny was the only one of his victims he had bound and that was only because of the logistics of that particular situation.)

    I say that Joubert was one of the worst I’ve ever read about because he had been a pure sadist. He seemed to have no other sexual fetishes and, from what I can discern reading about the cases, did not sexually molest his victims. Rather, he was aroused by their terror and would shortly after his murders attend to his perverse sexual desires in private. He took the lives of three young boys so he could masturbate remembering them. That is what it amounted to.

    I think you are wrong that he denied the Maine murder. I believe he ultimately confessed to that as well. However, even if I am wrong, there is no doubt of his guilt, and he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in Maine which (unfortunately) does not have the death penalty. Fortunately, Nebraska does.

    Here is a link to a discussion of Joubert that has some very interesting comments following the article. Among those who commented are a gentleman who had been Danny Eberlie’s childhood best friend (though he hadn’t known him long as the poster came from a military family and had just recently moved to the area) and a gentleman who had been Joubert’s supervisor where he worked on the Air Force base:

    http://pysih.com/2007/07/26/john-joubert/

    From the way the former writes of his little friend, Danny had been a really neat kid. From the way the latter speaks, Joubert had always seemed weird.

    I’ll make a later post regarding JG when I have time.
    Last edited by Armchair14; 11-17-2009 at 12:06 PM.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    312

    More problems with Bonnaci

    An interesting fact emerges from the Bryant & DeCamp books on Franklin.
    The three principle "witnesses" upon which Gary Caradori was building his case against prominent Nebraskans; Alisha Owen, Troy Boner and Danny King, never mentioned Paul Bonacci as being present or a participant at the alleged sex & drugs parties despite naming several other young persons besides each other - until after Bonnaci himself claims to have been there. In fact, none of these three mention even knowing Bonnaci in any way, prior to that. This seems very odd, in light of what Bonacci and several of the above named would subsequently state: that Bonacci was more fully immersed in the alleged ring than any of them, and was present at most of the parties.

    By the time Caradori does interview Bonacci, whose name he got from another person (not one of the above three), DeCamp's memo naming the principle suspects has been widely circulated and even reported in the press. And DeCamp claims, in his memo:
    "A reporter has to deaf, dumb, blind and corrupt not to know the names of the personalities involved and the scope of the allegations. Stop on any street corner in Omaha, go into any cofeeshop, have a drink in any bar, or...walk around...Lincoln and simply listen to the discussion. Here is what you will learn:" (the names of the suspects and details of the allegations)

    So, even DeCamp has claimed that before Bonacci was questioned, the names of the suspects and details of the allegations were everday common knowledge in the area. Then why, or how, could Bonnaci's possession of this information be considered of any significance at all - let alone be considered absolute proof of his own involvement and confirmation of all the allegations of the other three?

    Author Nick Bryant states that he has never caught Bonacci in a lie, but Bryant glosses over & excuses away most of Bonnacis more ludicrous public allegations of satanic cult abuse and murder as resulting from Bonacci being an "unintegrated" MPD at the time he made them.
    Well, in the videos of Gunderson's debriefing of him Bonacci states that he is fully integrated and therefore infallibly capable of discerning fact from fiction in his testimony. This is several years before the lawsuit against Larry King that DeCamp claims to have "won" on Bonacci's behalf. Yet, at the very start of Bonacci's testimony in that lawsuit, Bonacci claims that he is "possessed" by one of his alter-personalities and gives all of his testimony as that "other" person! So much for him being "fully integrated".

    Surely, though, now that Bonacci is married, has children, is building a life - surely all of his former dissembling and fantasy is in the past? Ok. So why, then, has he continued to make outrageous claims in public forums, such as his claim made during the last three years, that the CIA trained him to be an assassin while he was an elementary-aged child and that he is proficient at an expert level with a wide range of weapons and weapon systems?

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    494
    fascinating

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by surelock View Post
    I really have no idea what to believe regarding this case. There are a lot of conspiracies and precious little facts.

    Maybe the 3 witnesses are weak. If they are wrong then they have conspired to deceive or were themselves mistaken or some combination of the two.

    Without a body or a confession why abandon all hope and write John off? The Basken children have re-emerged after 20 years. They may not have been abducted by strangers but all 4 of them hid successfully all that time and the kids did not contact their parents. If their parents had given up then the news article that outed them would not have been published and the parents may have well gone to their graves in the agony of not knowing.

    Steven Stayner (thanks Mr Ed) is another example of why to hope that Gosch returns as well as a reminder to not revictimize those lost children who do find their way back home.

    It is certainly not my intent to foment conspiracies. This case is frustrating as a parent and I only hope for a resolution for his family as well as the handful of us who also worry and wonder.
    Has it ever been determined if Johnny did indeed visit his mother in 1997?

    Did the Baskin kids ever get back together with their parents?

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    86
    If Johnny did visit his mother in 1997, then I'm the King of England. I think his poor mother is nuts today. And who can blame her? I'd probably go crazy if my kid was kidnapped and there was no resolution for decades.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    494
    Regarding the kidnapping of Midwestern boys for child prostitution rings, the other day out of the blue my friend told me he was walking through Central Park in 1986 (he was 16 years old at the time), and found some sort of pamphlet lying on a path. When he picked it up he saw that it was a brochure filled with graphic pictures of undressed caucasian boys.

    I immediately thought of the conspiracy theory involved with this case when he told me this. Photos of white boys only in the middle of New York City in the mid-80s. Makes you wonder.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    The South, USA
    Posts
    2,405
    Quote Originally Posted by SnowAngels View Post
    Regarding the kidnapping of Midwestern boys for child prostitution rings, the other day out of the blue my friend told me he was walking through Central Park in 1986 (he was 16 years old at the time), and found some sort of pamphlet lying on a path. When he picked it up he saw that it was a brochure filled with graphic pictures of undressed caucasian boys.

    I immediately thought of the conspiracy theory involved with this case when he told me this. Photos of white boys only in the middle of New York City in the mid-80s. Makes you wonder.
    What did your friend do with the pamphlet? Hopefully he turned it in to the police!

    Those who believe Johnny is alive talked of a rumor of him making himself known this year, whether it was to come forward to the public, or in some other manner, I don't know. I've waited all year for some word that Johnny Gosch is alive, along with proof, but here it is mid-December and there has been nothing.

    I'm not willing to say definitively that I don't believe Noreen, or that Johnny was taken into a child pornography ring, because I think much of what Noreen says is plausible. However, if Johnny were still alive, as a man in his early 40s, what could he possibly have to fear? Surely the folks who supposedly took him and held him are either dead, incarcerated, or old now.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    494
    I think as soon as he realized what it was, he put it back on the ground. I don't think he went to the police, but I can't say for sure. I guess I can ask him next time I talk to him (kind of an awkward subject to randomly bring up).

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    122
    DOes anyone have access to the AMW video from 1992 and 1993, specifically march 1993, where the Jimmy is on the show? Ive searched google vids and around other forums, but have been unable to find.

    Also, Roy have you found any more problesm with paul bonacci? I feel he is one of the people hurting NG from any credible assistance. Same thing with Tim White (i think?) and the woman (forgot name)claiming she had twins, the govt took one, and replaced him with the child in a picture with Johnny Gosch.

    I do sincerely believe in the scenario that JG is either out of the country, or involved in an amish, etc. No ID needed, no bank statements, credit, etc needed. My questions to ask would be if Johnny Gosch was fingerprinted before abducted? is his social securty card still active??

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    2,437
    Noreen claims that the AMW episode has disappeared. Noreen can not even get a copy from John Walsh who is her friend.
    Order the book "Searching For Anna" directly from [URL="http://www.lulu.com/conte


  11. #161
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    312
    GoBrewers - yes, there are more problems with Bonacci's version(s) of events. One of the most serious would be: what appears to be a public statement, by the DMPD, that Bonacci's family members told them years ago that Paul was in Omaha Nebraska on the day of Johnny's disappearance.

    I still am not of the opinion that Noreen Gosch is "crazy". However, my opinion of the credibility of any & all statements she has ever made about the case is rock bottom now. I have reasons for believing that Ms Gosch has participated in online discussions of the case, using pseudonyms, for a considerable length of time - and engaged in deceptions in attempts to hide that fact from members of the public.

    I am currently of the opinion that Ms Gosch (and perhaps other persons who have been 'supporters' or 'associates' of hers at one or another time) may be so obsessed with "ownership" of the case, so obsessed with "solving" the case from outside the parameters of official law enforcement agencies, that she/they might be publicly endorsing entirely fictitious scenarios involving persons who never actually existed or were never genuinely involved, because those scenarios and "suspects" were generated by her/them (or their associates) and support the storyline she/they have chosen to be "Johnny's Story". I believe that she/they might eventually declare the case entirely solved, with not a scrap of solid corroboration for any of it recognised by official policing agencies.

    It is my opinion, at this time, that even statements of seemingly verifiable data - such as that Paul Bonacci described physical features of Johnny Gosch that had never been publicly released - should be considered "possibly true" rather than certain facts. I no longer believe that Ms Gosch, or her past associates, would be troubled by allowing false impressions or misinformation which conveniently supports their own narratives to go uncorrected even if they knew it to be false.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy Harrold View Post


    I still am not of the opinion that Noreen Gosch is "crazy". However, my opinion of the credibility of any & all statements she has ever made about the case is rock bottom now. I have reasons for believing that Ms Gosch has participated in online discussions of the case, using pseudonyms, for a considerable length of time - and engaged in deceptions in attempts to hide that fact from members of the public.

    I am currently of the opinion that Ms Gosch (and perhaps other persons who have been 'supporters' or 'associates' of hers at one or another time) may be so obsessed with "ownership" of the case, so obsessed with "solving" the case from outside the parameters of official law enforcement agencies, that she/they might be publicly endorsing entirely fictitious scenarios involving persons who never actually existed or were never genuinely involved, because those scenarios and "suspects" were generated by her/them (or their associates) and support the storyline she/they have chosen to be "Johnny's Story". I believe that she/they might eventually declare the case entirely solved, with not a scrap of solid corroboration for any of it recognised by official policing agencies.

    It is my opinion, at this time, that even statements of seemingly verifiable data - such as that Paul Bonacci described physical features of Johnny Gosch that had never been publicly released - should be considered "possibly true" rather than certain facts. I no longer believe that Ms Gosch, or her past associates, would be troubled by allowing false impressions or misinformation which conveniently supports their own narratives to go uncorrected even if they knew it to be false.
    [snipped & bbm]

    wow that's harsh & kinda cryptic too IMO

    I don't have an opinion one way or the other but am interested in why you think that she's using pseudonyms & if she is, why it should matter ... of course she's going to 'engage in deception' to hide her alias; otherwise she wouldn't need an alias at all

    and from what I understand, she's obsessed with 'ownership' of the case b/c well, aside from the fact that it's about her son, her trust of LE has suffered over the years (not to mention she's been exposed to so many conspiracy theories, she probably doesn't trust her own dog, if she has one)

    I really don't follow how she would benefit from knowingly creating and 'endorsing entirely fictitious scenarios' - that doesn't solve her mystery, unless you think that she just enjoys the attention but then you did state that you don't think she's crazy so I'm scratching my head at that or perhaps that plays into the online pseudonyms and she's trying to fish for information?

    the last part of your statement that I bolded, essentially is describing a lie by ommission, which while I don't agree with someone doing it, it's possible they think they have to 'fight dirty' so to speak or 'play the system' and that the ends will justify the means?

    so on your three points of deception, yes it's possible but what does it prove?

    1. does it prove that she actually had a hand in her son's disappearance and is purposely leading the public astray? is that what you're implying?

    2. does it prove that she's willing to go to any lengths to find out the truth and that's led her down some strange paths?

    3. does it prove anything of value to this case? or is it just more conspiracy innuendo to add to the mountain?

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    122
    i saw the tv guide deal, i looked on the AMW website and there is a picture and a small amount of info

    Mar 1993 "Jimmy" Gets Interviewed
    "Jimmy stepped forward and was interviewed on AMW. While he never showed his face, Jimmy gave a lot of solid evidence. He spoke of his friendship with Johnny, showed evidence of branding he tells was a punishment for the boys, and even gave a diary he kept of his horrible experience. "

    1992 Johnny's Story Airs On AMW: "Jimmy Steps Forward"
    "AMW aired the Johnny Gosch story and with the help of Paul Bonacci several composite sketches were drawn of the principals he says were involved in the alleged pedophilia ring. After the show aired, Noreen Gosch received a 14 page letter from a boy named "Jimmy" who said the same men who had abducted her son had abducted him and he told her that Johnny was still alive. Noreen said he knew personal details about her son that had never before been released and she believes him. "


    If the credibility of Paul Bonacci went unchecked, would one assume this could be anyone? I think AMW would have to get some kind of in depth questioning before having someone on to help aid in a missing persons case.
    http://www.amw.com/missing_children/case.cfm?id=26170
    Last edited by GoBrewers; 01-25-2010 at 02:12 AM. Reason: to add the end.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    2,437
    I have no idea if it is true or not, but I have heard through the grapevine that the "JImmy" you heard on the show was actually Jimmy's voice, but they used a body double for the visuals because Jimmy was acting so erratic that they felt his twitchiness detracted from the interview.

    Ultimately, I have given up trying to sort out the prophets from the liars in this case. Too many people are not who they seem. There are several "Jimmy Gibsons" and the one that I thought was legit turned out to be an imposter. Oddly enough, Paul Bonnaci seems to have verified that this imposter was the real Jimmy who appeared with him on AMW. It makes me wonder if there ever really was a Jimmy or if he was an early disinfo agent (for whatever faction) or a fictional character that others have assumed his identity over the years. All I know is that this Jimmy had me driving all around the desert one weekend looking for "Tony" when I now believe he just made up this alleged perp.

    This whole case makes my head hurt. Maybe others with more stamina (and perhaps smarter than me) can make sense of it, but I now have no idea what is truth or fiction antmore.
    Order the book "Searching For Anna" directly from [URL="http://www.lulu.com/conte

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    The South, USA
    Posts
    2,405
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Doogie View Post
    I have no idea if it is true or not, but I have heard through the grapevine that the "JImmy" you heard on the show was actually Jimmy's voice, but they used a body double for the visuals because Jimmy was acting so erratic that they felt his twitchiness detracted from the interview.

    Ultimately, I have given up trying to sort out the prophets from the liars in this case. Too many people are not who they seem. There are several "Jimmy Gibsons" and the one that I thought was legit turned out to be an imposter. Oddly enough, Paul Bonnaci seems to have verified that this imposter was the real Jimmy who appeared with him on AMW. It makes me wonder if there ever really was a Jimmy or if he was an early disinfo agent (for whatever faction) or a fictional character that others have assumed his identity over the years. All I know is that this Jimmy had me driving all around the desert one weekend looking for "Tony" when I now believe he just made up this alleged perp.

    This whole case makes my head hurt. Maybe others with more stamina (and perhaps smarter than me) can make sense of it, but I now have no idea what is truth or fiction antmore.
    This is where I am with this case. There's too much out there that is unverified; there are too many people who step forward to give information, then are exposed as frauds. Then the people who expose them as frauds are exposed as frauds. There is too much that is hinted at. Even the people that you think you can trust, like DeCamp, are "outed" as "bad guys." It's ridiculous and too hard to keep up with. The only thing I can say for certain is that whatever the truth is, enough people don't want it known, and the result is confusion and chaos. At this point, only a DNA-verified body of John David Gosch, alive or dead, will make me believe anything.

Page 11 of 38 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. IA John David Gosch (12) - West Des Moines IA, 1982
    By sweetpea657 in forum Missing Children in America - A Profile
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-06-2010, 03:57 PM
  2. Replies: 559
    Last Post: 01-16-2009, 10:01 PM
  3. Replies: 666
    Last Post: 03-27-2008, 05:08 PM
  4. Replies: 291
    Last Post: 12-09-2007, 01:37 PM
  5. Replies: 705
    Last Post: 09-27-2006, 12:22 PM

Tags for this Thread