2sisters said:
...I agree with another poster, she probably doesn't have a son... If she does have kids I am sure they stay away from her.
On FranklinFiles.com, a person who claims to know Patricia Johnson-Holm personally claims that she does have a son named David who is now in his thirties and has nothing to do with her (her other children also have cut their ties with her). The poster also claims that PJH has changed her story over the years from her son being cloned and it was the clone who was given to her by the people in the white trailer (in a matter of hours they cloned a teenage boy?) to the current story of her having a stolen twin who was switched with David by the people in the white trailer. And that she had just recently discovered that she had given birth to twins (one of whom was stolen at birth - I guess just so they could abduct the other one a dozen years later and make the switch. Makes perfect sense to me. :liar: ). The posters also lists many other kooky claims that the woman has made (and as hilarious as they are, I will not list them here).
Soi we now have the following differing explainations of the photo of the three boys - each with their own difficulties:
Option #1: THE ZAVLA EXPLAINATION
The retired detective who claims that the picture is staged where these three boys have been identified and verified to be not kidnapped. The boys (now adults) claim that they posed for the picture in trade for fireworks. The problem is the detective cannot produce any case notes to verify this claim, perhaps because they were purged after a period of time since no crime had been committed.
Option #2: THE GOSCH EXPLAINATION
In this explaination, the boy on the right is Johnny (as identified by Noreen). Patricia Johnson-Holm has identified the middle boy as her son David and the boy on the left as David's friend.
I believe that PJH's paper trail has shown her opinion to be worth zippo and Noreen's opinion has been tainted by her association with PJH. The detective's repudiation of the picture without any documentation to back it up is troubling, but compared to the circus that the Gosch side has now become, I believe Zavla, which means that I believe that picture is irrelevant to Johnny's case.
However, the other pictures of "Johnny" alone are still in play (IMHO). I am not yet convinced that they are of Johnny, but cannot dismiss them either. They exist separate from the PJH fiasco and may very well be of Johnny. These do seem worthy of greater examination.
By the way, another (yet unpublished) photograph has rumored to have surfaced showing Johnny (a few years after his disappearance) with Paul Bonnaci and George Bush Sr. together at a Bush campaign stop. The exact nature of picture is unknown by me (I have not seen it, but it has been summarized by those who have seen it). This has the "smell" of urban legend, but at least one of the people who has seen it is not what I would consider a kook, so I await the chance to examine it myself before passing judgement on its veracity. If not a Photoshop hoax and that Gosch and Bonnaci are clearly identifiable, then this is obviously big news which elevates the position of the Franklin Cover-up folks greatly. I will refrain from making any predictions about the photograph to see if it ever actually materializes in the public domain.