Look at the photos of the boy on Mrs. Gosch’s website that she claims were of her abducted son, the one lying on a bed without a shirt and his feet elevated due to the way he's tied; particularly look at the one where he's sitting and looking right into the camera and his face can be clearly seen. Print out a photo of Johnny, either from her website or the one on Wikipedia. After comparing them, are you seriously arguing these are photos of the same boy?
Look at their noses, their jaws, their complexions. Does the other kid look 5’ ’7" to you?
Johnny Gosch looked what he was: German. He looked like a big-boned, bull-necked, freckled-face farm boy. The kid in the picture looks like he might be of Italian heritage with a significantly darker complexion and has significantly sharper and finer features than had Johnny. In any event, he certainly isn’t Johnny Gosch.
Last edited by Armchair14; 08-20-2009 at 06:16 PM.
Last edited by thefragile7393; 08-20-2009 at 06:32 PM.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.---Patrick Moynihan
Living in the
I see a resemblance. I see a brown-haired, blue-eyed boy with freckles across his nose. In some photos the boy's eyebrows are visible, and they seem thin, like in the photos I've seen of Johnny. The one thing I can't see is Johnny's lips, which seem distinctive in his photos. Also, I don't see a birthmark, as Noreen said there would be. The boy appears to me to be long-limbed, which I would assume a boy of 5'7 would be. I don't see how you could tell height without a marker of some sort, plus with his knees drawn up and his arms behind him.
I see a resemblance. I think it could be him. Who knows? Whoever the kid is, I'd like to know. The boy in the pictures (and the other boys in the other pictures) seems scared and hurt. Whomever did that to him (them) should have to answer to it.
It’s pointless, I see, to belabor the point. I, of course, agree with your sentiments about finding this or any culprit who harms children. It is, however, my instinct that this particular kid was never in the slightest danger (which doesn't excuse it, by the way) and had been a willing participant in the photos, though he had had no idea why the man really wanted them. His facial expressions are at the direction of the photographer.
As I said before, he’s probably alive and well and forty or so and embarrassed as the dickens over these photos which is why he doesn’t come forward. From his point of view, if Johnny’s mom insists they are photos of her missing boy, that’s just fine with him. He rationalizes it away as giving her a straw to grasp while giving him plausible deniability in the event anyone who had known him as a kid might make inquiries of him.
Now, someone must have brought this up before. In the photo closest to the top (on Mrs. G's site) of this same boy, there is what looks to be a laundry bag from a camp, as Mrs. Gosch indicates at her site. It looks to me to read “Camp Caimbo.” Am I wrong about that? I haven’t found any reference to it on the web. Has anyone else had any success in tracking it, even if now defunct?
Last edited by Armchair14; 08-21-2009 at 11:26 AM.
Last edited by Armchair14; 08-21-2009 at 11:24 AM.
Wait...so how much patience do stalkers have? Are you saying you are thinking he only started stalking Johnny a day or two before his father (conveniently) doesn't go with Johnny on his paper route for the first time in all of Johnny's paperboy career?? That's still a pretty major coincidence in and of itself.
Anyway, anyway you factor it in, to me it just doesn't add up to be a random abduction. And, considering how big Johnny was, you'd think this stalker would pick a much smaller subject who would be "easier" to control. Why stalk a rather risky subject for several days at 5 am? Seems like it'd be a waste of time, doesn't it?
Sorry for such morbid, horrid thoughts. I just got to thinking....I'm not sure if it's been discussed anywhere previously, but is there any way it can be found out if Johnny's father aquired any unexplained wealth after the kidnapping occured? This may very well have been discussed before. Again, I hate thinking like this, but I felt it should be brought up (if it hadn't already).
With his nose, I, too, see a difference. But like I said, all the photos I've seen of him have the binding around the mouth, so I thought that the binding might actually pull his nose downward, making it difficult to really compare the nose. I think if we could see a picture of him with no binding, to see the face unaltered, it would make a huge difference in determining the boy's identity.
These are the reasons I'm not ready to say that I don't think it's Johnny yet. I still think it could be, but, again, who knows?
This camp was established in 1922 and looks quite ritzy. Such an environment (I don’t mean this camp in particular) would seem a breeding grounds for perverts, and if the boy in the photos came from a well-to-do background, that’s all the more reason for him not to come forward now.
In regard to the laundry bag, it would seem a simple enough matter to show the picture to the camp administrators of all camps with that name to see if it is one of theirs. I assume that’s been done. Again, I think the photos of this boy have absolutely nothing to do with Johnny Gosch or any organized, sinister ring. The photos were probably just shared with others of the photographer’s kind and one of them sent them to Mrs. G.. However, if they could track down who the boy is that would at least reassure Mrs. G. that he wasn’t Johnny.
Last edited by Armchair14; 08-21-2009 at 03:46 PM.
Previously in this thread, someone stated that Mrs. Gosch had stated that there had been discussion between Johnny and his father and mother about his being permitted to do his route alone and that Mr. Gosch had been in favor and Mrs. Gosch opposed.
What follows is the link to the short version (on You Tube) of Mrs. Gosch’s interview regarding her son’s disappearance. If one begins listening at around 4:00 into the video, one can hear her clearly and unequivocally say that to this very day she has no idea why Johnny went out on his route alone that fateful day, and she makes no mention of any previous discussion with Johnny regarding the point:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRmAf86XnAM"]YouTube - Noreen Gosch Interview re: her son's kidnapping-pt 1 of 12[/ame]
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.
For what its worth: Jimmy Gibson claimed that Johnny was not kidnapped that day - he ran away and later came under the control of the pedo ring. If this is true, then Paul Bonacci's story of his participation in Johnny's abduction would have to be false. Which one is telling the truth, I do not know.
I've heard the runaway theory too, on another website, and I think it's possible but unlikely. Johnny was spotted on his paper route. He talked to other carriers and he was seen folding his papers. He had his paper bag with him, his dog, and I think a wagon. I don't know why he would decide to runaway while delivering papers. If he thought, I'll pretend like I'm going to deliver papers, but really I'm all packed and ready to runaway, then why would he have actually shown up for his route?
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
Last edited by Armchair14; 08-24-2009 at 12:04 PM.
Armchair14, it is hard to know what to believe in this case. I suppose all we can do is take in information and keep our minds open. Another website I visit has claimed that Johnny Gosch himself is alive and in hiding, but that he intends to make his existence public sometime in 2009. 2009 is half over now; I'm still waiting to see if this is true. I'd like it to be, but who knows? Maybe he's waiting until Sept. 5? Or maybe it's all just a hoax.
And you're right -- Noreen's book is hard to read. It took me a long time to get through it. I definitely think it's worth reading, and I'm glad I did, but I think it raised more questions than anything. She needs an update, I think, since the photos have come out.
[QUOTE=Mr. E;4076033]Armchair14, it is hard to know what to believe in this case. I suppose all we can do is take in information and keep our minds open. Another website I visit has claimed that Johnny Gosch himself is alive and in hiding, but that he intends to make his existence public sometime in 2009. 2009 is half over now; I'm still waiting to see if this is true. I'd like it to be, but who knows? Maybe he's waiting until Sept. 5? Or maybe it's all just a hoax.
What other website are you referring to? I thought I read that somewhere here as well.
Am I allowed to put that website on here? Anybody? It's another forum that discusses Johnny Gosch (among other things). I don't want to break the rules on this forum.
Sorry for asking. I didn't think about that being illegal. I need to go back and read the rules! Could you pm it to me?
Never for a moment did I think that I was the first person to notice and note the strange coincidence that the first and only day that Johnny Gosch went on his route alone just happened to be the day when someone was waiting to abduct him or any suitable target of opportunity. I mean, it’s glaring! What I didn’t know until just very recently, however, was that the same was true for Eugene Martin!
I’ve been reading some past notes on WS, and I came across a gentleman whose insights I am very impressed with. He, like me, seems most skeptical of this entire sinister conspiracy angle of Mrs. Gosch. More importantly, he has put forth a theory that answers the “coincidence” problem in both cases (and the coincidence of the coincidences between them!) in a most plausible way that does not involve the boys having been set up by anyone close to them.
Please note the post by Roy Harrold posted on 3-28-2009 at 12:57 PM. It is the fifth post on this page; on this very thread:
Bravo! This is the idea I have been searching my mind for!
It was no coincidence. The perp was some man with an association with the paper carriers on a daily basis. We’re looking for a Michael Devlin type, a physically big man who would have felt confident he could handle a larger youngster like Johnny. Johnny might not have been his first choice as far as his perverted desires went, but he was acceptable and the opportunity presented itself that day, as it did later with Eugene regardless if the perp had been one and the same or not. It was the same scenario, whether one perp or two different ones. This could be a district manager, delivery driver or anyone else with a daily interaction with paper carriers.
With the benefit of Mr. Harrold’s brilliant insight, I, for one, now revert to my original inclination; i.e., the perp was the typical lone predator pervert type and all this conspiracy theory, built upon the most dubious of sources, fades into the fantasy that it always has been, at least in regard to Johnny Gosch.
Last edited by Armchair14; 08-24-2009 at 05:54 PM.