IA IA - Johnny Gosch, 12, Des Moines, 5 Sept 1982 - What if no ring / No conspiracy?

[2sisters]

Did anyone notice in the most recent picture of "Johnny" on Noreen's website the picture under the table. It looks like a sketch of a boy. Like maybe a missing poster image of Johnny that the perp brought back to torment Johnny. Let me know what you think. I have been lurking for a long time and finally got registered. You guys are great!

to me it looks like an 8x10 senior photo, like a late 60's early 70's type. to me his expression looks bored and not scared as I would expect.

 

[Rhett]

But if it were a missing persons poster it would be a picture of the child given by the family. I don't think the subject would be scared in a picture that was taken at school or photo studio, etc.

 

[2sisters]

But if it were a missing persons poster it would be a picture of the child given by the family. I don't think the subject would be scared in a picture that was taken at school or photo studio, etc.

No, I meant the boy tied up not the picture under the table. Sorry

 

[Mr. E]

I noticed that picture, too, but it doesn't look like a missing poster to me. It looks like an 8X10 glossy. I can't tell the age of the person, though.

The kid in the picture, who I still say looks like JG, looks more all-around tan in the first picture (the one that had been doctored to have the "brand" on his arm). His torso looks much whiter in this second picture. I guess that must be lighting because he's in the same clothes, so I assume the pics were taken close together. But maybe not?

Also, and this is weird, but is he not wearing underwear? There is no underwear line, and no underwear waistband sticking out, like you're likely to see with someone in that position.

 

[William R Thomas]

In my opinion I do not think Noreen is a reliable source for information, much as Doc has mentioned numerous times. I mean no disrespect on what I am about to say but I feel it must be said. My medical background is in internal medicine not psychiatrics so Im certainly not an authority; however this women displays classical symptoms of a fictitious disorder. The one most people hear about is Munchausen by proxy, which is where a caregiver inflicts injury on a child in order to receive attention, the end result of course is death of the child in the event that pattern behaviour is not identified in the caregiver. What sort of childhood illness record did Johnny have? Im not saying Noreen has MbP but she could very well have a fictitious disorder of some kind. She is continuing to receive attention from her child’s suffering (real or imagined) the only difference is her child is not present but she continues to use him as a source. It’s something to think of anyway. But I would like to stress that I do not think she is a reliable source of information nor anyone who is in conjunction with her website. I also think the mother needs to be more closely looked at due to her unusual behaviour both shortly after and in the long term.

edited: spelling

As a "doctor", is it common in your practice to diagnose those you have never spoken to or met?

 

[Mr. E]

In my opinion I do not think Noreen is a reliable source for information, much as Doc has mentioned numerous times. I mean no disrespect on what I am about to say but I feel it must be said. My medical background is in internal medicine not psychiatrics so Im certainly not an authority; however this women displays classical symptoms of a fictitious disorder. The one most people hear about is Munchausen by proxy, which is where a caregiver inflicts injury on a child in order to receive attention, the end result of course is death of the child in the event that pattern behaviour is not identified in the caregiver. What sort of childhood illness record did Johnny have? Im not saying Noreen has MbP but she could very well have a fictitious disorder of some kind. She is continuing to receive attention from her child’s suffering (real or imagined) the only difference is her child is not present but she continues to use him as a source. It’s something to think of anyway. But I would like to stress that I do not think she is a reliable source of information nor anyone who is in conjunction with her website. I also think the mother needs to be more closely looked at due to her unusual behaviour both shortly after and in the long term.

edited: spelling

What was Noreen's unusual behavior shortly after JG's abduction that makes you suspicious? Maybe I missed something; I always thought she seemed much like you would expect a shocked, bereaved parent to act.

What other types of fictitous disorders are there? I've heard of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.

 

[HeartofTexas]

The following paragraph illustrates pretty clearly what Noreen Gosch occupied herself with in the years following Johnny's abduction. Her behavior is not only that of a concerned parent, but her tireless work in passing laws to protect missing children across the United States surpasses exemplary behavior, IMO. To classify her behavior following the abduction of her son as that of a person with fictitious (more accurately called factitious) disorder is to do every grieving parent of a missing child a huge disservice.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Noreen founded "THE JOHNNY GOSCH FOUNDATION", a month after the kidnapping and developed a program called "IN DEFENSE OF CHILDREN". She has presented more than seven hundred speeches all over the United States, reaching thousands of people. She wrote the "JOHNNY GOSCH BILL", which was passed into law in Iowa on July 1, 1984. A year later, Missouri as well as seven other states adopted the bill and passed it into law. This law, which is still called "THE JOHNNY GOSCH LAW", provides the immediate involvement of police when a child is missing, instead of the previous 72-hour policy of waiting.[/font]






​

​

​

http://www.johnnygosch.com/aboutNoreen.htm

 

[KJERVIS]

As a "doctor", is it common in your practice to diagnose those you have never spoken to or met?

Im not exactly sure what part of my post made you assume I was diagnosing anything. I was merely pointing out interesting connections between someones behaviour and clinical cases I have seen in the past. You objecting to my opinion is perfectly fine, you poking fun of my profession and hinting that it is an object of ridicule is not acceptable. Im not sure what you hope to gain from being objectionable in every post you put in this forum but you have already been warned in the past. I for one will not be reading anything more you have to say since your goal is clearly to stir the pot and certainly not to add any insightful information.

 

[KJERVIS]

The following paragraph illustrates pretty clearly what Noreen Gosch occupied herself with in the years following Johnny's abduction. Her behavior is not only that of a concerned parent, but her tireless work in passing laws to protect missing children across the United States surpasses exemplary behavior, IMO. To classify her behavior following the abduction of her son as that of a person with fictitious (more accurately called factitious) disorder is to do every grieving parent of a missing child a huge disservice.

[/center]



http://www.johnnygosch.com/aboutNoreen.htm

Im sorry you feel my post is out of order. I agree she has done tireless work in the area of abducted children, I do however, stand by my previous post in that she uses her sons disappearance to feed some sort of delusional need of hers. Of course this is my opinion and you are certainly entitled to yours.

 

[KJERVIS]

What was Noreen's unusual behavior shortly after JG's abduction that makes you suspicious? Maybe I missed something; I always thought she seemed much like you would expect a shocked, bereaved parent to act.

What other types of fictitous disorders are there? I've heard of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.

From what I understand ficitious disorders are a very broad catagory. The diagnosis MbP focuses on using the medical community to feed this disorder but there are far less structured diagonsis that fall under the general label ficitious disorder. Very simply explained it is someone who uses lies and stories to suppliment a need for attention. This could be done in many different ways as Im sure most of us can envision. Most of the time these people are diagnosed with additional disorders that cause this sort of manifestation. I suppose a psychiatrist could explain this better but I hope this answered your question.

 

[cappuccina]

...with no access to the files or evidence in this case, or to any LE in Iowa or Federal LE, to any forensic scientists, etc., is it your practice to write a book based soley on the musings you have on this case while sitting in your office, using no facts or academic information whatsoever?

(addressed to William)

 

[William R Thomas]

...with no access to the files or evidence in this case, or to any LE in Iowa or Federal LE, to any forensic scientists, etc., is it your practice to write a book based soley on the musings you have on this case while sitting in your office, using no facts or academic information whatsoever?

(addressed to William)

1st, what makes you assume I have no access to any of these things? Oh thats right, because you know everything.

2nd, what makes you think I am writing anything about this case? I'm not. Perhaps, once again, you should go back and READ more carefully what I wrote.

 

[William R Thomas]

Im not exactly sure what part of my post made you assume I was diagnosing anything. I was merely pointing out interesting connections between someones behaviour and clinical cases I have seen in the past. You objecting to my opinion is perfectly fine, you poking fun of my profession and hinting that it is an object of ridicule is not acceptable. Im not sure what you hope to gain from being objectionable in every post you put in this forum but you have already been warned in the past. I for one will not be reading anything more you have to say since your goal is clearly to stir the pot and certainly not to add any insightful information.

I see your a mind reader as well? Where exactly in my post do you find me poking fun of your profession? Perhaps there are words there that are invisible that I cannot see? As for hinting it is [being a doctor]an object of ridicule...perhaps you are just as delusional as you claim Noreen to be, because in the one sentence I wrote, none of those things were intended nor implied.

 

[docwho3]

I would like to suggest that we ignore whomever we need to ignore rather than continue to argue in posts and perhaps end up with the thread locked and/or the whole case banned from discussion on any thread as was threatened by a moderator not so long ago. At this point getting the thread banned may seem more advantageous to those who support some theories as it seems they are losing ground on the facts that are coming to light. Or maybe feelings are just running too high to contain but in any case if we don't see a reduction in personal attacks and off topic posts we may pay the penalties mentioned above. It is all up to the mods and what they see and decide to do about it. I am not alerting them to it at this point but I can't answer for others who may already have done so for all I know.

 

[mjak]

Confrontation vs. challenge

I have been following the Johnny Gosch case since he first went missing and ended up on a milk container on my breakfast table. Websleuths has provided us with a medium upon which to have some of the best discussion and hypothosizing about what might have happened to Johnny. Everyone's input is valuable. I have seen some great deductions and theories presented here. Latley I have not been posting as much as reading but I still come here everyday to get the latest info. William R. Thomas, you have provided us with some wonderful insight, as have many others on this forum. However, I see a pattern here that is troubling. I believe we need to challenge each others ideas inorder for us to differentiate between what holds water and what needs to be disgarded. However, Challenging is NOT the same as confronting. When a person is confonted they automaticly go into defensive mode. I see this happening here and the result is an unpleasent and very inconducive enviorment for constuctive sleuthing. Instead you end up with a dichotomous environment where people are attacking and retreating and no good comes outof that. William R. Thomas often your responses are confrontationaly as opposed to challenging. The perfect example is your response to Kjervis. She/he posted an opinion as a medical practioner and your one sentance reply challenging her/his diagnostic criteria came across as confrontational and disrespectful. Although, your point is a good one your deliverance was not productive. We want to keep the ideas and communication flowing here. We can only do that by being respectful of each others input regardless of if we agree with it or not. If your only response is out of anger then honestly its of no value to Johnny so I suggest it not be posted to waste space and discourage communciation. Lets keep the sleuthing flowing and help Johnny !!

mjak

 

[HeartofTexas]

Please let me state at the outset that I am dropping out of this discussion altogether, so any way I've contributed to the friction in this discussion will be over with after today.

What has bothered me most, however, is the people who have continually painted Mrs. Gosch (Noreen) in such unflattering ways. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the TOS rules as they apply to this case, and that is certainly a possibility, but I see Noreen as a victim in that it was her son who was abducted... in the same way I saw Laci Peterson's mother as a victim, because Laci was her daughter, and Laci was murdered. If Noreen is indeed a victim, then I think the TOS rules apply to her, as stated below:

11. Please note that Websleuths is a victim friendly forum therefore we do not permit name calling of victims. Please tread carefully in this area. Discussion of victims and families is permitted but name calling and foundless accusations will not be allowed.

IMO, I've seen too many instances where people have accused Noreen of being mentally ill, severely mentally ill, or having factitious disorders along the lines of Munchausen's by Proxy. If I've done a post stating an opinion to counter what I consider to be an unfounded attack of Noreen, then I am considered a problem poster and state that they're sorry "you feel my post is out of order". Well, no, what I've stated is that I don't agree with your opinion.

Likewise, I see everyone is on the Wm. Thomas bandwagon in saying he's argumentative and/or confrontational. That may well be true. But I haven't seen anyone saying that Cappucina's post above was either argumentative or confrontational (recapped below):

As a "non-cop" and "non-detective/investigator"
...with no access to the files or evidence in this case, or to any LE in Iowa or Federal LE, to any forensic scientists, etc., is it your practice to write a book based soley on the musings you have on this case while sitting in your office, using no facts or academic information whatsoever?

(addressed to William)

So yes, William's post was confrontational, but I consider Cappucina's to be confrontational, too.

There is obviously an imbalance here... pretty much the "good guys" versus the "bad guys"... and it's not healthy nor conducive to further investigation of this case for me. As I said earlier, I'm dropping out of any further involvement with this case, so I'm not looking for agreement from anyone in what I've said, or disagreement for that matter. I just wanted to offer my opinion before moving on.

 

[docwho3]

In reponse to someones mention of "foundless accusations" against noreen:
Her own Husband (or exhusband now) in a news report cast doubt on noreens story about her sons latenight visit after his disappearance. That is one fact that gives doubt to the whole conspiracy story and gave rise to questions of why she might be puttng out a false story. That is "foundation". Later some of her pics on the website were called into doubt by investigators in news reports and this also served to hurt her credibility. That is "foudation". Her conspiracy sources (many of them) as one or more posters have pointed out have perjury convictions and this too calls her info into doubt. That is "foudation". she misidentified her own son in some pictures most recently and that too has cast doubt on her and she continues to say the L.E. are w rong and that the pics on her website are infact those of missing children even after it was announced in news reports that a boy in the pics, now a man was found and talked to and said they posed for the pic and the names of all three in the pic are now known to L.E. according to that news report (That is "foudation".) and all this has been posted in previous posts and so when people try to think why she might put out false info and misidentifies her son in pics etc and they bump into 2 choices: 1. Either she was lying 2. or she was mentally ill in some way and did not know she was not telling it straight. Often people speculate that her misinformation that she puts out is more in keeping with a mental illness than with deliberate lying and perhaps they are being nice. In short, the news reports give foundation and basis for the posts made so far as I can see. No one is name calling her. I have yet to see anyone call her a dirty so-and-so.

The news reports give indication her story is not true and in my opinion saying so does not make anyone guilty of bashing the family. I have seen accusations of family bashing used before as a reason to stop discussions from going in a direction that one side did not like, especialy when they seemed to be losing points on the facts alone.

 

[Dr. Doogie]

Confrontation vs. challenge

...Lets keep the sleuthing flowing and help Johnny !!

mjak

:clap:

Well said.

 

[mjak]

HeartofTexas, I challenge you to reconsider your decision to leave this forum. I believe you are falling into the trap I reference above in my post, where the confrontational negative atmoshpere here is causing people to react in a dichotomous manner by either confronting back or running. Please do not run as that only contributes to the ongoing negativity and does nothing to help Johnny. Why not share with us why you dispute people (including myself) beliefs that Noreen may be mentally Ill. It really is not relevant whether we regard a mental ill label on a person as a negative. As that is personal opinion and very subjective. It is important as to whether she is mentaly ill or not because that impacts her beliefs and therfore the reliability of what she says happened to Johnny. Tells us why you feel so strongly that the mentally Ill catorgorzation of Noreen being the explanation for her beliefs is not true. Keep contributing to this thread so maybe somday with all our brainstorming we can help to bring Johnny home.

mjak

 

[William R Thomas]

Please let me state at the outset that I am dropping out of this discussion altogether, so any way I've contributed to the friction in this discussion will be over with after today.

What has bothered me most, however, is the people who have continually painted Mrs. Gosch (Noreen) in such unflattering ways. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the TOS rules as they apply to this case, and that is certainly a possibility, but I see Noreen as a victim in that it was her son who was abducted... in the same way I saw Laci Peterson's mother as a victim, because Laci was her daughter, and Laci was murdered. If Noreen is indeed a victim, then I think the TOS rules apply to her, as stated below:

IMO, I've seen too many instances where people have accused Noreen of being mentally ill, severely mentally ill, or having factitious disorders along the lines of Munchausen's by Proxy. If I've done a post stating an opinion to counter what I consider to be an unfounded attack of Noreen, then I am considered a problem poster and state that they're sorry "you feel my post is out of order". Well, no, what I've stated is that I don't agree with your opinion.

Likewise, I see everyone is on the Wm. Thomas bandwagon in saying he's argumentative and/or confrontational. That may well be true. But I haven't seen anyone saying that Cappucina's post above was either argumentative or confrontational (recapped below):

So yes, William's post was confrontational, but I consider Cappucina's to be confrontational, too.

There is obviously an imbalance here... pretty much the "good guys" versus the "bad guys"... and it's not healthy nor conducive to further investigation of this case for me. As I said earlier, I'm dropping out of any further involvement with this case, so I'm not looking for agreement from anyone in what I've said, or disagreement for that matter. I just wanted to offer my opinion before moving on.

I too am dropping out of this case on WS. To those of you whom have evaluated the many things I've posted and challeneged me to think in ways I hadn't previously, I salute you. H.O.T. you have become a friend and mentor and I look forard to continuing our dialoges.

I have met some insanely great people on here, but to those who's sole interest is to further an agenda, I can only say, you will never get this case, because you can't see the forrest through the trees.

My time here has been great, but short.

Hopefully, I will get a chance to meet some of you at your local Borders next year. Look for a book by W. Raymond Thomas, a work of fiction, loosley based on theories of the Gosch case.

Sorry for causing you so much strife jeana, and thanks for always hearing my side, and not giving me a time out when I proabably deserved one.

Good luck sluethers. I hope all of you, in your own way, are right.