IA IA - Johnny Gosch, 12, West Des Moines, 5 Sept 1982 #4

Armchair14 said:

Although it is admittedly difficult to gage height from such a photograph, it seems to me that this boy was no more than the five feet, ninety pounds (if that) that is the average for twelve-year-old boys in the United States according to charts I looked up on the internet. According to a missing children website, Johnny Gosch had been 5’7” and 140 lbs. Indeed, one puzzling aspect of the case, assuming he was the victim of one or more pedophiles, is that they would single out such a relatively big kid.

If Johnny was abducted, I would guess that his kidnapper must have been a big man or that there had been more than one kidnapper. If they had wanted the boy as part of the organized pedophilia ring that Mrs. Gosch positions as responsible for her son’s abduction, it seems strange they would go to the trouble of stalking a kid already so tall for his age as his sinister “marketability” period would seemed to have been of a rather limited duration, even more so than it would be for smaller kids.

Also, this kid (from the photo where his face can be clearly seen) simply doesn’t look all that much like Johnny Gosch to me. The noses don't even look close and the boy on the bed seems darker, as if he might be of Italian heritage or partially so. (He's wearing what looks to be a crucifix around his neck, so I'm going to guess he's Catholic.) Am I the first person to have made these points?

Click to expand...

Please correct me if I am wrong...anyone. But I believe the height/weight on his poster is what they believe him to be at age 39, not at the time of his disappearance. Also the jewelry you point out...it's quite shiny and new looking. I would imagine he was made to wear it. Pedo's have warped minds, god knows what they had those children do; so for him to be wearing it only signifies to me that they wanted him to wear it. I doubt that it was his to begin with and that they would be so kind to let him keep it.

:cow:

Maz

I believe Johnny was big for his age; at age 12 I think he was something like 5'7 and 135/140 pounds. I remember there was a discussion about how difficult it would be to snatch a kid that size off the street. Noreen says in her book that Johnny was subdued somehow, either through tazering or chloroform (or both), I don't remember.

She hints, at the very least, that John Gosch Sr. (Leonard Gosch) had a hand in Johnny's abduction. She says there were some "hang up" phone calls before the abduction, but at around the time that Johnny would have been abducted Leonard actually spoke to someone briefly on the telephone, then said that it was a wrong number (again, I may have some details off; it's been awhile since I've read the book). There were some other things, including the trip to Offutt, that made her suspicious of her husband. I've heard some other things, too, about a property that they owned that may have been used for nefarious purposes. And there is the story that she went to visit someone who was connected with the abduction in prison, and he said he'd met her before. She hadn't, and found out that her ex-husband had brought a "look alike" to the prison and passed this person off as Noreen. There's a photo in Noreen's book, I think.

Regarding the necklace in one picture, there are a lot of pictures of different kids, bound and gagged, wearing that (or a similar) necklace. The necklace appears to be a cross. To me, that's something that connects these kids (the ones who have been photographed bound and gagged); however, it could be just a coincidence. However, the photos all take place in similar rooms/areas, so I see that as another connection.

Mr. E said:

I believe Johnny was big for his age; at age 12 I think he was something like 5'7 and 135/140 pounds. I remember there was a discussion about how difficult it would be to snatch a kid that size off the street. Noreen says in her book that Johnny was subdued somehow, either through tazering or chloroform (or both), I don't remember.

She hints, at the very least, that John Gosch Sr. (Leonard Gosch) had a hand in Johnny's abduction. She says there were some "hang up" phone calls before the abduction, but at around the time that Johnny would have been abducted Leonard actually spoke to someone briefly on the telephone, then said that it was a wrong number (again, I may have some details off; it's been awhile since I've read the book). There were some other things, including the trip to Offutt, that made her suspicious of her husband. I've heard some other things, too, about a property that they owned that may have been used for nefarious purposes. And there is the story that she went to visit someone who was connected with the abduction in prison, and he said he'd met her before. She hadn't, and found out that her ex-husband had brought a "look alike" to the prison and passed this person off as Noreen. There's a photo in Noreen's book, I think.

Regarding the necklace in one picture, there are a lot of pictures of different kids, bound and gagged, wearing that (or a similar) necklace. The necklace appears to be a cross. To me, that's something that connects these kids (the ones who have been photographed bound and gagged); however, it could be just a coincidence. However, the photos all take place in similar rooms/areas, so I see that as another connection.

Click to expand...

Thank you for responding. I find it frustrating that the poster does not indicate his height/weight at time of disappearance. It is unclear to me.

I think 5 foot 7 and 140 pounds is quite large for a boy of 12 years. The pictures of him just don't indicate to me that he was that size. However I have been wrong before. :crazy:

JMHO

Maz

Mr. E said:

I believe Johnny was big for his age; at age 12 I think he was something like 5'7 and 135/140 pounds. I remember there was a discussion about how difficult it would be to snatch a kid that size off the street. Noreen says in her book that Johnny was subdued somehow, either through tazering or chloroform (or both), I don't remember.

Click to expand...

This is what I had been alluding to in my first post. The fact that Johnny had been such a big kid combined with the strange coincidence of his having gone missing the very day that had been his first day out alone on his route, makes me wonder if any alternate theory to pedophilia has ever been explored.

It’s difficult to know in regard to what Mrs. Gosch recounts to take seriously and what with a grain of salt, but her assertion that there was at least one witness to a man having taken photographs of the boy not long before the presumed abduction might be accurate. I would have to assume that the police have already investigated along these lines, though.

In regard to the photos, I believe the original ones with the three boys were pretty much what the Florida police investigator claimed they were. He offered no reason why such pictures had been taken, though the anonymous letter the police received claimed that they had been taken in Tampa as the result of three boys challenging one another to an “escape contest.”

My take on that is that the letter writer had been one of the three boys, now grown, and either feeling guilty at the apparently sick attempt at a joke played on a grieving mother or was simply embarrassed as hell at seeing such pictures of himself made public and hoped they would fade away when exposed as frauds.

I don’t buy the “escape challenge” (around 1979/1980) explanation the letter writer had improvised. I think that in retrospect the man who had written the letter now realizes that he and his buddies had been conned into posing for such pictures by the man (the investigator referred to) who had taken them and staged the scenes so he could later indulge himself in his perverted fetish using them as models. Since there was no nudity or sexual acts involved, he could indulge himself with legal impunity.

I would guess that all subsequent photos sent to Mrs. Gosch were by copycats, maybe some of them by kids themselves. (“Hey, Jimmy! You want to be on a big website?!&#8221

One problem I have with the claim that the photo of three boys was a Florida case of kids playing an escape game is this: I've seen at least one other photo of a different kid, also bound and gagged, in what appears to be the same setting. If it was just a game, or if the photos are innocent, why would there be similar photos with different kids?

Mr. E said:

One problem I have with the claim that the photo of three boys was a Florida case of kids playing an escape game is this: I've seen at least one other photo of a different kid, also bound and gagged, in what appears to be the same setting. If it was just a game, or if the photos are innocent, why would there be similar photos with different kids?

Click to expand...

If there is another photo of a different kid in the same setting as the first three boys (and I’ll take your word for it as I don’t want to go wading through them again on her website), it is explained within my last post. Who sent Mrs. Gosch the original photos? I’m betting it was the man who took the pictures or another of his kind whom he shared his collection with.

The photos are “innocent” only in the sense that they are not legally pornographic. In accordance with his particular fetish urges, he’s satisfied with clothed (or mostly so, at least) models not engaging in sexual acts per se. What the boys thought is open to conjecture. He probably gave them something or took them out to McDonalds afterwards. It is hardly surprising if these three kids were not his only photographic subjects through the years.

Mr. E and anyone interested:

After my last post, an afterthought occurred to me.

For those who believe that the photos on Mrs. Gosch’s website are of her son and others in the grasp of some demonic, organized pedophilia ring, did it ever occur to you to wonder what the purpose of these photographs was? Why are the children clothed and/or not being sexually abused? An organization so sinister that it cares not about laws and harsh penalties for kidnapping is going to worry about running afoul of child *advertiser censored* laws?

So what’s their purpose? To show to parents as part of a ransom demand? Was there ever such a happenstance regarding these photos?

Armchair14 said:

Mr. E and anyone interested:

After my last post, an afterthought occurred to me.

For those who believe that the photos on Mrs. Gosch’s website are of her son and others in the grasp of some demonic, organized pedophilia ring, did it ever occur to you to wonder what the purpose of these photographs was? Why are the children clothed and/or not being sexually abused? An organization so sinister that it cares not about laws and harsh penalties for kidnapping is going to worry about running afoul of child *advertiser censored* laws?

So what’s their purpose? To show to parents as part of a ransom demand? Was there ever such a happenstance regarding these photos?

Click to expand...

I suppose there are many reasons for the photos. One could be for ransom although I haven't read enough on the cases to say whether ransom was demanded in this or the other boys cases.

The photos could have also been used as advertising..."Hey, look at these young boys we have! If you want them contact me via *whatever means perverts use* to place your order".

Also, a woman wearing fishnet stockings is enough to make many men aroused so why wouldn't a picture of young boys bound and gagged be enough to make some pervert aroused?

I think there can many reasons for the photos...the worst being to get some sort of gratification by playing mind games with the families.

:cow:

Maz

Throughout all 4 of the threads related to this case, all of this has been hashed and re-hashed over and over again. Many on here feel that Mrs. Gosch has had a lot of weird stuff fed to her, a lot of bizarre things, and not everything is fact, and not everyone here believes the bizarre things. You have to set aside all the weirdness and concentrate on the known facts and genuine possibilities. There are likely nuggets of truth mixed in. Anyone who only reads the Franklin Files website and Mrs. Gosch's website aren't going to get an accurate picture of what happened. Her book does help but again, it can be hard to read and to make sense of it. My feelings and opinions have been posted over and over throughout the threads and I'm not going to repeat them again, because it's just going in a circle and after a while you get burnt out on it. The one thing that seemed to unofficially "breathe life" into this case was Dr. Doogie's work on it, and the backseat angle he is/was taking on it...trying to find out who took him and working backward. That seems to be the sanest place to start. Even then, that's been some hard work for him too!

I wonder why this case was never featured on Unsolved Mysteries?

SnowAngels said:

I wonder why this case was never featured on Unsolved Mysteries?

Click to expand...

I don't know, but there was a show, 20/20 or something like it, that produced a segment on this case, but it was pulled at the last minute for reasons unknown.

Regarding the clothed pictures, a lot of them have kids dressed almost in costumes. I saw a lot of Boy Scout uniforms, for example. I think the "costumes," in conjunction with the binding and gagging, is probably a turn-on to some sickos. They may like to see kids dressed as typical kids, but at the same time all tied up. Mazama's example of a woman in fishnet stockings makes sense. Scantily clad women are a turn on for many men; little boys in Boy Scout uniforms all tied up are probably a turn on for others.

The pictures I saw did not all come from Noreen Gosch's website. I've seem some other very disturbing pictures. I absolutely don't believe it was a game, as the detective from Florida claims.

I have read everything I can about this case and still don't know what I truly believe. However, I have noticed something about the pictures that seems odd to me. There are, I think, two pictures of the boy tied up and a cat can be seen in the background. In one of the pics the cat is actually grooming itself. It is not typical behavior for a cat. What I mean is that animals can sense when something is wrong, especially emotional extremes. I would think that if this boy had just been bound and forced to pose for some sick monster, he would have been screaming, crying, etc. No cat would stick around while this was happening, much less be grooming itself. What I'm saying is that the setting seems much "calmer" than you would expect given what is supposedly happening.

Spurser said:

I have read everything I can about this case and still don't know what I truly believe. However, I have noticed something about the pictures that seems odd to me. There are, I think, two pictures of the boy tied up and a cat can be seen in the background. In one of the pics the cat is actually grooming itself. It is not typical behavior for a cat. What I mean is that animals can sense when something is wrong, especially emotional extremes. I would think that if this boy had just been bound and forced to pose for some sick monster, he would have been screaming, crying, etc. No cat would stick around while this was happening, much less be grooming itself. What I'm saying is that the setting seems much "calmer" than you would expect given what is supposedly happening.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps the cat is used to that type of environment because it wasn't the first time it experienced it?

Just a thought... :cow:

Maz

Mr. E said:

Regarding the clothed pictures, a lot of them have kids dressed almost in costumes. I saw a lot of Boy Scout uniforms, for example. I think the "costumes," in conjunction with the binding and gagging, is probably a turn-on to some sickos. They may like to see kids dressed as typical kids, but at the same time all tied up. Mazama's example of a woman in fishnet stockings makes sense. Scantily clad women are a turn on for many men; little boys in Boy Scout uniforms all tied up are probably a turn on for others.

Click to expand...

That’s exactly what I have been saying, except the photos have nothing to do with some sinister, organized pedophilia ring of certain parties’ imagination. The original photos Mrs. Gosch received were taken, just as a police investigator remembers and the anonymous letter to the police indicates, by a man in Tampa with three willing models. He was doubtlessly the friendly, “Uncle Eddy” type neighborhood pervert and this is his fetish. He probably shared them with others of his ilk and one of them sent the photos to Mrs. Gosch thinking it was amusing, knowing she would grasp at any straw.

The anonymous letter probably came from one of the three boys, now embarrassed as hell that such photos of him as a kid have been made public (and now realizing what they had been intended for at the time) and perhaps feeling conscience pangs as well. At the time the photos were taken, the kids probably had no idea what the perv’s real motivation had been. The then kid is now a forty-year-old doctor, lawyer or Indian Chief with kids of his own and hoped that once exposed as being frauds the photos would fade away from public view.

If this projected sinister ring’s "clients" were satisfied with these sorts of photos, it wouldn’t seem necessary to kidnap kids to procure them. I think it would probably take little more than placing an order with young, gay street hustlers and costing little more than the price of a fix and a few bucks for them to take the kids out to eat at a fast food restaurant afterwards. They would hardly require the resources of multimillionaires, not to mention the C.I.A..

Spurser said:

I have read everything I can about this case and still don't know what I truly believe. However, I have noticed something about the pictures that seems odd to me. There are, I think, two pictures of the boy tied up and a cat can be seen in the background. In one of the pics the cat is actually grooming itself. It is not typical behavior for a cat. What I mean is that animals can sense when something is wrong, especially emotional extremes. I would think that if this boy had just been bound and forced to pose for some sick monster, he would have been screaming, crying, etc. No cat would stick around while this was happening, much less be grooming itself. What I'm saying is that the setting seems much "calmer" than you would expect given what is supposedly happening.

Click to expand...

That’s a very astute, careful observation on your part.

Just for the sake of argument, dismiss the organized pedophilia ring with ties to the C.I.A and the White House as the usual rants of conspiracy theory nuts; and dismiss the photos as not being of 5’ 7”, 140 lbs, fair-complexioned, freckled-face Johnny Gosch (as anyone not legally blind or a grief-stricken mother would) and, therefore, whatever their source(s), as being irrelevant to the Gosch case, then it becomes a very simple matter.

Assuming that Mrs. Gosch is at least being accurate when she asserts that Johnny had never before that fateful day went on his route alone, then we are left with the ponderous “coincidence” that it just also happened to be the very day someone was waiting to abduct him or any suitable target of opportunity in his neighborhood. If one considers the odds against such a coincidence, then one is virtually forced to dismiss it as such. Therefore, the question to ask is: “Who could have arranged such a ‘coincidence’?” The possibilities are very limited.

The only remaining question is motive. That is for the police to establish through forensic specialties. If they already have and could not establish any motive then, as unlikely as it seems, I guess Johnny had been the victim of horrendously bad timing and was abducted in accordance with the usual scenario of a lone sexual predator out on the prowl that particular day.

The first scenario ironically does involve a conspiracy (of at least two people), while the second does not require such.

Mazama said:

Or perhaps the cat is used to that type of environment because it wasn't the first time it experienced it?

Just a thought... :cow:

Maz

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's possible. But animals act more on instinct and aren't as easily desensitized as humans.

I just want to mention that I don't see anything particularly nefarious about Johnny being taken the one day he decided to go out to deliver papers alone. If he had been stalked by a predator for awhile, that predator wouldn't have known necessarily that Johnny went out /everyday/ with his dad to deliver papers. The predator would have observed a kid who looked promising and would have waited to see if he could get lucky. He did.

Armchair14 said:

That’s a very astute, careful observation on your part.

Just for the sake of argument, dismiss the organized pedophilia ring with ties to the C.I.A and the White House as the usual rants of conspiracy theory nuts; and dismiss the photos as not being of 5’ 7”, 140 lbs, fair-complexioned, freckled-face Johnny Gosch (as anyone not legally blind or a grief-stricken mother would) and, therefore, whatever their source(s), as being irrelevant to the Gosch case, then it becomes a very simple matter.

Assuming that Mrs. Gosch is at least being accurate when she asserts that Johnny had never before that fateful day went on his route alone, then we are left with the ponderous “coincidence” that it just also happened to be the very day someone was waiting to abduct him or any suitable target of opportunity in his neighborhood. If one considers the odds against such a coincidence, then one is virtually forced to dismiss it as such. Therefore, the question to ask is: “Who could have arranged such a ‘coincidence’?” The possibilities are very limited.

The only remaining question is motive. That is for the police to establish through forensic specialties. If they already have and could not establish any motive then, as unlikely as it seems, I guess Johnny had been the victim of horrendously bad timing and was abducted in accordance with the usual scenario of a lone sexual predator out on the prowl that particular day.

The first scenario ironically does involve a conspiracy (of at least two people), while the second does not require such.

Click to expand...

Take that account with the other post (either here or on another thread) of the actual number of boys that around Johnny's age that went missing in Iowa 1980-1900 that were considered to be abducted (and yet to be found)....I believe the number is 4 or 5? And you have a very, very chilling scenario. This was not a coincidence, imo.

I don't think the presence of an animal means anything honestly. My mom has a nutcase ball of fluff that hides 24 hours a day and likes nobody..and I mean not even my mom half the time. There is nothing hinky or dramatic going on in my parents' house, not now or in the past--the cat is looney. While I do believe animals are astute, intuitive, and sensitive, I don't believe it proves or disproves anything that there is a calm animal in the presence.

Just for the sake of argument, dismiss the organized pedophilia ring with ties to the C.I.A and the White House as the usual rants of conspiracy theory nuts;and dismiss the photos as not being of 5’ 7”, 140 lbs, fair-complexioned, freckled-face Johnny Gosch (as anyone not legally blind or a grief-stricken mother would)

Click to expand...

I am not legally blind, a grief-stricken mother, or a conspiracy theorist. However I believe that they could be of him. Could be are the keywords. I'm not saying I truely believe either way. There are a number of plausible scenarios and again, nuggets of truth mixed with bizarre theories are most likely there (pedo rings do exist for instance, and govenment officials can be pervs or pedos themselves...recall the Washington DC madam or the case of the official who was using "call-boys". Again, not saying at all that this case goes clear to the federal government, in fact I beleive it doesn't at all. Locally maybe, but not that far). Name-calling or insults on either side isn't tolerated on this thread BTW...reading the previous 3 threads shows a cantankerous past here. We don't need this thread to turn into the Maddie McCann forum.

thefragile7393 said:

I am not legally blind, a grief-stricken mother, or a conspiracy theorist. However I believe that they could be of him. Could be are the keywords. I'm not saying I truely believe either way. There are a number of plausible scenarios and again, nuggets of truth mixed with bizarre theories are most likely there (pedo rings do exist for instance, and govenment officials can be pervs or pedos themselves...recall the Washington DC madam or the case of the official who was using "call-boys". Again, not saying at all that this case goes clear to the federal government, in fact I beleive it doesn't at all. Locally maybe, but not that far). Name-calling or insults on either side isn't tolerated on this thread BTW...reading the previous 3 threads shows a cantankerous past here. We don't need this thread to turn into the Maddie McCann forum.

Click to expand...

I don’t mean to be name-calling. I am simply incredulous. This point has nothing whatsoever to do with conspiracy theories or what happened to Johnny Gosch. It concerns trusting one of one’s physical senses; i.e., one’s eyesight.

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.