S03E05: THE DISAPPEARANCE OF JOHNNY GOSCH (PART II)

[00:00:00] AJ: Coming up on this episode of Crime Family; 

[00:00:04] Noreen makes a shocking claim. In 1999, she comes forward and says that two years ago, so in 1997, she was woken up by a frantic knock on her door at 2:30 in the morning. She says that the person at her door was Johnny... and a photograph featured a group of boys tied up and gagged and in various poses. 

[00:00:24] Katie: If it was Johnny and he's trying to keep a low profile, why would he have this such high profile job in the White House? And then going on talk shows, you know, you would think that that would be a no-no if you're trying to be a nobody. So... 

[00:00:38] Stephanie: I kind of feel bad for Noreen. I don't think John had anything to do with it. 

[00:00:42] Katie: Something happened to him. Somebody knows something and whether how big or how small it is. Like, that's what it is and it's still somebody's missing out there.

[00:01:47] AJ: Hi, everyone. Welcome to part two of our Johnny Gosch case discussion. So if you listened to the first part then obviously, you know, that this case has been pretty crazy with lots of twists and turns and possible theories, and you don't quite know who to trust or what's really happening. So it was a really interesting case. If you haven't listened to part one, go check that out because we are going to start our part two discussion, which just continues right where we left off and trust me there's lots more twists and turns to come. So just wanted to warn everyone as well for this one that this case does involve some discussion about child sex abuse and child sex trafficking. So we realize that might be triggering for some listeners. So just use discretion when listening to this episode. So without further ado, here's part 2. 

[00:02:32] And okay, during all of this as well, so it's revealed that Paul suffers from dissociative identity disorder or DID, is what it's referred to, but during all these articles it's referred to as multiple personality disorder, because I guess that's sort of there back in the eighties and nineties, that's what it was referred to, but now it's more commonly referred to as Dissociate Identity Disorder. And it's such an interesting, fascinating and wild condition. Do you guys know anything about DID at all or... 

[00:03:03] Stephanie: A little bit, but not a whole lot. Like I've heard of it, but I don't really know all the details that go into it. 

[00:03:09] AJ: Yeah. So I did a little bit of research about this, about this, because some of the things I watched on this case do go talk about it a little bit, but I just did a little bit of research on my own. So it's actually, like I said, very interesting. It usually happens as a result of severe prolonged childhood trauma, and it kind of acts as a coping mechanism. So the brain actually creates another identity or multiple identities as a way to protect the person from the effects of this trauma. It can actually be up to a hundred different personalities that one person can have at one time, or it may just be one other personality, but it's at least one other one. And these different personalities can have different speech patterns, different handwriting. And it's my understanding that they can only remember certain traumatic events that happened while they were in that personality. So for example, like Paul, if he experienced all this trauma, he's only going to remember those events when he's Paul, but if he's has any of these other identities, he's not going to remember the memories that are associated with that identity. So it's actually quite rare, this condition, it's very hard to diagnose and it's also just a tricky sort of thing to kind of deal with. So there's so much unknown about it, but it is a really, really interesting illness. And Paul has been officially diagnosed with this. And I think that was also kind of used throughout all of this as like a, a way to discredit him. So again, you see the police and the FBI basically saying that they don't believe anything he's saying. They said that it was a hoax. They kind of come out and said that they consider it a hoax. So it's kind of like they use. "Oh, well, he's just, he's mentally ill. He's suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder." So they kind of use that to discredit everything he's saying, and they kind of ignore all the stuff that actually seems legitimate. So then there's interviews with Noreen and the private investigators and stuff that they show in the documentary as well. And he shows Naureen multiple pictures that he drew by his different personalities. And so each one is signed differently depending on which personality drew it. So when he shows it, it's like different pictures, but each of his personalities wrote a different picture and all of the signatures are different. So it's really interesting and kind of different like, and have different speech or different, well, different speech styles, writing styles and different handwriting, depending on which personality. So it is, you know, you can have five different handwriting, that's all by the same person if they have this illness. So it's really interesting, really...

[00:05:43] Stephanie: Fascinating! So bizarre. 

[00:05:46] Katie: It is really fascinating. And a lot of the time, the person that has these personalities has no idea about the other ones. So it's like they can go, they almost black out from their actual personality and these other ones take over. And then when they come back, it's almost like they had a blackout. So it's super scary to be that person, but super interesting watching from the outside. 

[00:06:08] AJ: The researchers and scientists and stuff that are looking into or experts in this, they, it is very tied, closely tied to childhood abuse, specifically childhood sexual abuse. So it's usually found in people who have like prolonged child sex abuse in their past, which Paul does. And it's just crazy to think that the brain can do that as a way to cope because the trauma is so horrific that like you would die if you had to actually deal with the trauma that you experience. So your brain just like creates a whole different persona in order to survive it. It's really, really fascinating. So when I kinda went down the rabbit hole of DID too during all of this, but at this point in the story, I'll also mention a man named Lawrence E. King, whose role in all of this is controversial as well. Just like everyone else's involvement in this apparently. So Lawrence was a Republican from Nebraska and he was believed to be operating a massive child sex trafficking ring in Omaha. So he was kind of like, when all of this stuff was circulating about this potential sex ring in Omaha, Nebraska, he was believed to be at the head of it and he was a rising star in the Republican party. So he was kind of making his way up through the Republican party in Nebraska and had some pretty high connections with some politicians and stuff. So this kind of followed him around like a dark cloud. Because, you know, once those rumors are out there, it kind of is associated with you, whether it was true or not. So there was a lot of people who did believe that he was sort of the "King Pin" in this huge child sex trafficking ring. He was eventually sentenced to 15 years in prison for embezzlement charges, but never was convicted of any sex trafficking crimes. The validity of Lawrence's role in all of this is highly contested. And two grand juries found the sex trafficking accusations against him to be unfounded. So, however, part of Paul Bonacci claims involved Lawrence. He said, Lawrence was guilty of repeated sexual assault against him and other children and for forcing Paul to quote, "scavenge" for other children. So Paul was very clear about Lawrence E King's involvement in all of this. And Paul eventually goes on to file a successful civil suit against King, which resulted in a $1 million settlement for Bonacci. The documentary "Who Took Johnny", from 2014, claims at this amount was never paid to Bonacci. So...

[00:08:41] Katie: It seems to make sense, because when you hear of other similar crimes like this, there's always somebody that's very powerful or, or powerful and rich at the top. That's how they're able to get away with it for so long. And even still, I mean, they haven't found out what happened to Johnny. So it's those people that have that kind of power and influence that are able to run stuff like this because people will listen to them. People will believe them and not tell on them because of their power. So it doesn't seem to far fetched. 

[00:09:11] AJ: And it just, this guy just kind of seems like a weird person. I don't know. He's just like. I don't, I don't of course I have no idea the validity of this, so I can't speak to if it's true or how much of it's true, but... 

[00:09:27] Katie: Yeah. Even if it's not him, it could be somebody else that's super powerful, like in the government or super wealthy.

[00:09:35] AJ: And I also feel too though, like if you are to be ,sorry Steph, but I was going to say, if you believe Paul's claims about all of this, then you have to kind of believe that it's Lawrence. Like why would he lie about that? You know what I mean? Like, if he's telling the truth about everything else, but then that one person, he just, for some reason is lying about like, I feel like if you believe Paul, then you also have to believe him on that.

[00:09:54] Katie: What was the civil suit about that he put out against him? Because obviously if he won, then there's some validity there. Right? 

[00:10:03] AJ: Well, like the documentary says that two grand juries determined that those, the child sex abuse claims against Lawrence were unfounded. So they dismissed that and he never ended up showing up to court at all, but he, Paul did file a civil suit against him for sexually abusing him and other children. And that he would quote would have, he would have Paul go and "scavenge for other children" to like bring back to him. And there's also claims in there that there was these huge auction parties where all these big powerful politicians would come and they would auction off the children. It is despicable stuff that you read in that. And it was Lawrence's house or Lawrence that was organizing these parties. That was also part of the claims as well from Paul and Paul attended these parties as one of the victims. 

[00:10:55] Katie: Was Jeffrey Epstein there too? 

[00:10:58] Stephanie: Katie, you just took the words out of my mouth? This totally sounds like a Jeffrey Epstein thing. Exactly what he did. He was higher up than he got his wife to get all these people into his circle. And then there was like politicians and "Kings" and whatever, whatnot. But like, it's that what exactly..

[00:11:18] AJ: Kings?

[00:11:18] Stephanie: Reminds me of. Well, you know, whatever it just reminds me of. Like... 

[00:11:25] AJ: Yeah, Prince Andrew. 

[00:11:26] Stephanie: Yes. That stuff like that whole case with them and that sex ring. It's exactly. Maybe I doubt it, but maybe they were all part of it together. This Lawrence guy and all of them. 

[00:11:40] AJ: That's another part of it. It's like, again, I don't know, because if you're filing a civil suit and he wins, like you don't win a civil suit, unless there's some validity to it, but then also two grand juries, two grand juries dismiss the case because there was an unfounded. So I don't understand how you can win a civil suit, but then a grand jury is saying, so are they not looking at the same information? Or maybe the grand jury was bought off by someone who wanted to like, you know, I have no idea. That's the thing I'm more confused than ever, because I don't know what the truth is, and I don't know what to believe in any of this.

[00:12:12] Katie: And I don't know if this is true, but isn't a civil suit is, you know, way less serious? You're not going to have criminal charges in a civil suit. Are you going to just like pay somebody off? Basically. 

[00:12:22] AJ: Yeah. Like every time I think of a civil suit. So I go back to like in the OJ case. So he got off on the criminal trial, he was acquitted, but then the family filed a civil suit, a wrongful death suit, and they won that. And so a jury basically said that he did commit the murders. But it was a civil matter for wrongful death. So they won that, but can't be criminal. So that's the way the system is fucked up. Like he's basically, he was found to be not guilty in the criminal trial, but in the civil trial he was guilty. So something like that happened here.

[00:12:57] Katie: Yeah. So it was like the civil suit. Oh, you don't go to jail. You don't get charges, but yeah, you're still guilty, you know, pay the victim off and you're good to go. 

[00:13:06] AJ: Yeah, I don't know. And yet the documentary also says that Lawrence never showed up to court for any of this. Like, he was kind of absent through it all through the, I guess is the impression I got and he never paid the million dollars that was owed to Paul Bonacci. So he never actually acknowledged any wrong doing. So I don't know, but in my experience, I feel like, if there's like literally smoke there is fire. If there's like this much kind of rumors swirling around about one person. I mean, I don't know. At one point you have to kind of be like, there has to be some sort of truth to it if there's that many allegations floating around out there.

[00:13:43] Katie: Well yeah. And yeah. And if you won a, you won a civil suit there has to be something there. Right? So, yeah. 

[00:13:51] Stephanie: And isn't it illegal to not to show up for court or pay somebody that you need to pay. 

[00:13:56] AJ: Well, I mean, people don't pay. I mean, there's people who don't pay their civil...

[00:14:01] Stephanie: I guess.

[00:14:01] AJ: All the time that happens. There's people never, never get the money that they're owed and the, yeah, it's illegal, but like depends on if they're going to follow up with it or actually go through with, because if they didn't get the money the first time, what are they going to do? I guess, throw them in jail. You're not going to Sue them again because they're not going to pay that money. So like, I guess jail is what it would be, but it all depends on if nobody cares that no one's really following up on it. So I don't know. Like I said, I am going to say I don't know a lot because I just don't know. 

[00:14:29] So this case takes a shocking turn again. And remember early on, I said that when Johnny hugged his mom and went up upstairs to bed, that was the last time she ever saw him. And then I said, "Or is it?" And then that's why I said that because of this next part. Later on Noreen makes a shocking claim. In 1999, she comes forward and says that two years ago, so in 1997, she was woken up by a frantic knock on her door at 2:30 in the morning. She says that the person at her door was Johnny. He had long shoulder length, black hair and he says that he was kept captive since his abduction and that he could not escape. But once he was considered too old to be of any use or it wasn't valuable anymore, he was basically discarded and thrown away. And then he said that he had then lived a new life under a new identity because he feared that if he returned to his family or his regular life, it would bring too much attention to him. And that maybe those responsible would find him and kill him or his family to avoid any information getting out. So he basically couldn't, he was thrown out by them, but couldn't go back to his family because for their own safety and his own safety. Plus, he was probably afraid that some of the crimes that he was forced to commit would have legal repercussions if he identified himself. So Noreen says that he was accompanied by another unidentified male of similar age. And she says at one point that like Johnny kind of, would always look to this person before he talked as if he was like, he needed permission to talk or say anything. I don't know who this other person was. She says that she knew by looking at his eyes, that it was him. And she said that he even opened up his shirt to reveal the birthmark on his chest to confirm that it was him. He said that she could never tell anyone that he was there or that he would be killed. And at this point he would have been 27 years old at this time. Again, Noreen's convinced that it was her son, but never told anyone for years out of fear that he would be killed. And she only came forward with this information two years later during a court proceeding. So I think it was during Paul Bonacci's civil suit and all of that legal stuff that she was called to testify. And they asked her the question of, have you ever seen your son since he disappeared? And that's why she said she felt, you know, she didn't want to commit perjury, so she felt that she had to, she was under oath, she had to be truthful. So that's when she came forward and said that she saw him in 1997. Noreen faced public ridicule when questioned, when people questioned, why she didn't come forward right away. But she of course said that it was because she feared for his safety. So what do you guys think of this? Do you believe Noreen's account of this event? 

[00:17:11] Katie: Well, does this match up with what Paul said? How he escaped? Like did they let him go as well? Like how did he get out of it? 

[00:17:21] AJ: Yeah, he, he got out of it, I guess. Well, at the time when he was first came out or first came forward in 1989, he was 21 years old and he was in jail at that time for child sex abuse. So he was out of it by that time he was 21. So I don't know how he got out of it, but maybe a similar thing, like. And Noreen had had lots of conversations with Paul by this point, because they had had many interviews and all of this kind of stuff. So she knew a lot of information about what had happened to Paul. So if Johnny's telling her all this, it must've lined up. If she believed. And she said that he showed her the birthmark on his chest, so confirmed, it was him. And she knew that just by looking at his eyes, that it was him. 

[00:18:02] Katie: Yeah. I don't want to say that I don't believe her. I feel like, I'm not going to say it's not true. It's hard to believe that it is true, but I kind of feel like it is. But also it's such a risky thing for you to kidnap people, keep them for years and then let them go and just trust that all of them are going to keep quiet. Especially after Paul came forward already, then they would have let Johnny out after that. He could have been another one that could back up Paul's story. So it just seems weird that they would let them go. 

[00:18:31] AJ: I mean, obviously if they let, and I don't know, I guess that the specific details, if they let Paul go or if maybe he escaped, or something, but he was out and he survived it and he's out there telling all these stories now. So it does seem and that was in 1989, so Johnny would, that was only seven years after Johnny went missing. So he was 19 at that time. So it seems like they wouldn't go then release him after all this information was coming out about Paul and all this stuff, he said, so that part of it is kind of weird, but I don't know at what age you're considered too old? Like maybe he was released before that, like maybe he was let go when he was 17 or maybe when he wrote that letter in 1988, that typewritten letter that he sent to, maybe he was out then, because that would have only been a year before Paul came forward and he would have been 18 at that time. So maybe he was thrown out before that. Like, I don't know. They're pretty disgusting people maybe by the time you're 14, you're considered too old. I don't fucking know. 

[00:19:31] Katie: Yeah. Who knows.

[00:19:32] Stephanie: A part of me wants to believe that it is true. But then like the other parts, like, I don't think it is. Cause like we talked about Paul and then like, I feel like, I don't know. I just, I don't know. I'm 50/ 50. It's hard for me to think one way or the other. But if it was him, it's sad that she didn't say anything. 

[00:19:55] AJ: But I understand why she wouldn't have said anything.

[00:19:57] Stephanie: True. Yeah.

[00:19:58] AJ: If she's believing what he's saying and saying that, you know, they're going to kill me if they find out I was here, why would she tell anyone? She's already been fearful for his life you know? So that part of me, like, I don't, I'm not, I'm not in the camp of like, why didn't she come forward? Like I get why she didn't. So that to me, I don't consider that. If I don't believe her, it's not because of that. 

[00:20:18] Katie: But that almost makes it sadder. It's like he is alive. He went through all this, but now she still can't be with him because they're both scared for his life still. So, yeah. 

[00:20:34] AJ: Yeah. And also, I just wanted to actually go back into one thing about that letter. So the letter that she got in 1988, that was typewritten said that I'll never be allowed to escape. So he wasn't out by then, if that was him, because he said I would never be allowed to escape. So anyway, I just wanted to clear that up. But...

[00:20:51] Johnny's father, John, went on record to say that he doesn't believe Noreen's account that this happened. So he doesn't think that that's true. Doesn't know, like, maybe she dreamt it. Like, maybe she's so desperate for answers that she just dreamt all this happened, and then like, sometimes your dreams can be so vivid and you just believe it. Like, who knows when you're going through that much grief, what actually can occur. So that's a possibility. 

[00:21:17] Katie: Yeah. I was thinking that as well. Maybe she's just so distraught that she's convinced herself that he's out there and that he did come, she could legitimately believe it. Even if it is not true. 

[00:21:29] AJ: Yeah, because I can't think of a reason why she would flat out lie about it. That that doesn't make sense to me. I mean, she's already been written off as a loon by the cops. Like she's not going to concoct the story to come out as even more crazy. You know what I mean? So she would be kind of, and also maybe that's why she was quiet for two years as well. And she could have very easily just lied in court and not, and said she hadn't seen him. So like, it would have been very easy for her to just say that, but she's like, "No, I was under oath and I didn't want to commit perjury, so I had to be honest." Like, I just can't conceive in my mind that she would just come up with this. So I think if it's not true, it's not because she's actively lying, it's just because she believes it's true, but it didn't actually happen. 

[00:22:12] Katie: Yeah. It's so hard to say. And I feel it it's hard to believe as well that Johnny never got back in contact with her, especially now. I mean, is she is she still alive? Johnny's mother?

[00:22:26] Yes. As far as I know. The documentary came out in 2014 and I haven't seen anything that says she's not alive.

[00:22:35] If they're both still alive, it'd be so much, if he could, I don't know, find her on Facebook or something. That'd be hard to believe maybe for her that it was him, but it was just, I think it's easier to, much easier to contact people now than it was back then. So yeah. 

[00:22:52] AJ: Yeah. I feel like if he wanted to reach out to her, he very easily could this day and age. And he also says that the reason that he came to her was because at this point she was going on a lot of talk shows and she was trying to raise awareness about his disappearance and she was believed he was still alive, and that she was also an advocate. You know, she was trying to raise awareness about child sex trafficking and trying to raise awareness or trying to advocate for that. So she was on all these talk shows and he said that he saw her on a talk show with a message to him, because she would say, "Johnny, if you're out there, come see me." And that's why he came. So that was what she said that he said ,again, it's who knows? I don't know. Again, I'm just more confused then ever. That's not the end of it.

[00:23:39] So there's even another encounter or another incident that happens again to Noreen. So Noreen claims that in September of 2006. So he went missing in September of 1982, so this would have been 24 years after his disappearance. She says that she found a series of photographs at her front door and the photographs featured a group of boys tied up and gagged, and in various poses. She believes that one of the boys in the photos is Johnny, due to a marking on his body, but his father, John doesn't believe it to be him. Also one photo in the bunch was of an adult man, possibly dead with something around his neck. So that could have been like one of the kidnappers or something. It was also in these photos. Then it's kind of complicated, but apparently somebody writes a letter saying that somebody is pulling a nasty prank on Noreen and that these photos are actually from a case from Florida that was actually investigated in the seventies before Johnny even went missing. So the claims are that the three boys in the photos were from Florida and that a detective already investigated that case. And when interviewing the boys, the detective says that they claimed it was just an escape game and that the photos weren't real and it was just, kind of a sick game that they were playing, and that case was pretty much considered closed. So therefore law enforcement dismissed these photos without even looking at them like they didn't actually meet with Noreen or see the photos, but based on the description of them, and I guess they probably had seen them when she probably went on some news show to talk about them, said that it was just, those were the same photos or some of the photos were the same photos from that previous investigation. So, yeah, law enforcement believes that the photos are in no way related to Johnny's disappearance. Three boys from the photos were identified, but the fourth boy, the one that Noreen believes is Johnny was not identified. So again, we don't know who, who dropped these photos off. Is, are they legit? Did somebody like throw in these random photos of that old investigation to just throw them off, like, with one photo that was legit? In the documentary Noreen says one of the poses that he has, it has a grey weird shadow on his arm but she's like, no, that's not a shadow, that's like a mark that he had on his arm. And then the interview, John who says, no, his feet are too big, like that's not him at all. So I don't know. Again, it's a case of, I don't know what the fuck is happening.

[00:26:13] Katie: So these other kids that were identified in these photos, what do they have to say about this situation? Was it real? Were they kidnapped? Were they being abused? Held somewhere? Did they talk to this other guy? Like, who are these people? What do they have to say about it? 

[00:26:27] AJ: Yeah, they said that it was just an escape game. The photos weren't actually real, that it was an, they were playing an escape game and they just took photos of themselves tied up and gagged. 

[00:26:35] Katie: So they're saying that they're the ones that said that? 

[00:26:38] AJ: Well, that's what the, that's what the detective who said that they said in the interviews, but they've never come forward and said it themselves. Like, I don't know. 

[00:26:47] Katie: ... fourth person is? It's probably a friend of theirs. You know what I mean? So it's not like some random person. I'd like to talk to the people in these photos.

[00:26:56] AJ: Yeah. And also who was that random adult that was like, just dead on the bed or something in one of the photos too, like I don't know. It is so weird. 

[00:27:07] Stephanie: What kind of game is that? That doesn't even seem like a fun game. 

[00:27:10] AJ: Well, I mean, who knows what kids do? I don't fucking know, but it's just so weird. And why is there an adult? OK, if these kids were playing an escape game, who's this adult? Why is he tied with something around his neck? Dead. I don't get it, or I don't know if he's dead. Noreen said, looks like he could be dead. That's what they say. I don't know!

[00:27:30] Katie: That's so weird. What a creepy picture. 

[00:27:33] AJ: It's so yeah, the pictures are very disturbing. They showed them in the documentary and all of these other places I've seen, like YouTube videos, you just search on YouTube, you'll find it. I didn't necessarily think that the documentary was like super well done. I had kind of some problems with the documentary. So...

[00:27:47] Katie: It may be from like Noreen's perspective and she might be grasping at straws for a lot of things, but they're just going with it because it is a really interesting story. What she has to say about it. So it could be all, you know, what's the word, like... 

[00:28:00] AJ: Bullshit?

[00:28:01] Katie: Yeah, but what's a nicer word for that. Like exaggerated, but...

[00:28:05] AJ: Conspiracy?

[00:28:07] Katie: Yeah, it could just be like, you know, exaggerated to make it seem more interesting. 

[00:28:13] AJ: But I think from that sense, I mean, all this stuff that's in the documentary is stuff that she has gone on record to say that's all legitimate. So it doesn't, it didn't seem like the documentary was like sensationalizing it really. But like, it just, it's all the stuff that she's come out to say that has never been confirmed by anyone else other than her. But also she's saying that "while the police don't want to look into it, the police are ignoring me and they won't look into it." But then it's like, well, maybe the police have, and they've said it's complete bullshit, and she just doesn't let it go. Like, you know, I don't know. 

[00:28:40] Katie: Yeah. That's what I mean. I mean, it might be her just wishing all this was true or she thinks it's all true just to get her story out there, but it could be just, you know, a grieving, desperate mother just saying whatever she can to get her story out there. Sort of. 

[00:28:57] AJ: Yeah. And so again, but though I don't know why she would. I don't believe, I don't think she's lying about the pictures. Like I think somebody did drop this off and I also think that she maybe was just super vulnerable, and all of these idiotic people just took advantage of her and tried to pull all these sick jokes on her. So maybe none of them were Johnny. And, but again, like I said, there's so many things that make you think that there has to be some validity to it, but like maybe someone did just drop off the pictures as part of a sick joke and that she just like grasped onto it. Just thinks it's Johnny in the photo, but it's actually not.

[00:29:33] Katie: Yeah, exactly. That's kind of what I'm thinking. 

[00:29:36] AJ: Yeah. So like, I don't she's actually full out lying about it, but like is maybe believing what she wants to believe. Yeah. 

[00:29:42] Katie: She, yes. She believes that it's true, even if it might not be. 

[00:29:46] AJ: So finally there's one last twist in this case, and I don't really think ,this last part I'm going to say, I don't think has any truth to it at all, but every source that I've seen that covers this case always mentions it. So I feel like I had to mention it just because it's part of the case. You can't really talk about it without this part, but I don't really believe it. So I'll just preface it. So in 2005, there were rumors circulating that Johnny Gosch was actually living in plain site, under a fake name, mostly because of this encounter that Noreen said that she had with him in 1997, where he said that he was not in this ring anymore, but that he had to like have a new identity in order to basically start a new life. There was a man named Jeff Gannon who was at the time in 2005, a Conservative White House reporter during George W Bush's presidency. He came under some suspicion with conspiracy theories that were swirling around that Jeff Gannon was the new identity that Johnny Gosch was now living as. So people wondered how Gannon had gained credentials to be a reporter in the White House, and seemingly came out of nowhere. Like he wasn't this well-known reporter, no one had ever even heard of him before, until like right before this. And all of a sudden he's in the press or the White House press room, asking questions to the president. As a part of this, he worked for some right wing news outlet, but no one knew who he was, but he was seemed, he had these credentials that are apparently very hard to get. People just wondered how he had gained credentials to be a reporter in the White House and just basically came out of nowhere. So he made kind of appearances on a lot of talk shows. Like he did an interview on MSNBC. He went on the Bill Maher show because there were these rumors that were circulating and he kind of wanted to set the record straight. So Bill Maher, when he's on his show, presses him on this topic. He mentions that Gannon had visits to the White House when there were no press briefings taking place. There was no record of his entry or exit times, and no way to track what the nature of the visit was. So if he's a White House press reporter, but he's going to the White House at times when there's no press briefings happening, but there's no swiping in and out. So no one knows how long he was there, why he was there, or when he was there. But they know for some reason that he was there, somehow. So it seems really odd and there's hardly anything concrete or legit to give weight to this theory. Noreen and her PI have said that they have reason to believe that he may be Johnny and they requested a DNA test from Jeff. But this was back in 2005. And I have no idea what actually came from that. There's never any reports that say he took a DNA test .He's on TV in one of his interviews saying he will do a DNA test. He's adamant that he's not Johnny Gosch. He's pretty angry in some of these interviews and he's like, "These are conspiracy theories. I have no idea what you're talking about." But Noreen and her PI seemed to think that it might be him. So Jeff's real name is actually James Guckert, and in his past, apparently he was a male escort posting photos on like gay escort sites. But like, I don't believe this man has anything to do with this case. And I don't have any reason to believe that he is Johnny, even though Noreen at one time or another, or maybe she still does believe it to be. A news report from MSNBC says that Jeff has quote, "similar body markings" to Johnny Gosch, and that very little is known about Gannon's past. And he's very secretive about his past. No one knows who his family is or anything about him. So I guess those are the main things that kind of bolster this theory. But other than that, I don't really know. I don't have, there's nothing concrete to back this up. So I have no idea... 

[00:33:30] Katie: If it was Johnny and he's trying to keep a low profile, why would he have this such high profile job in the White House? And then going on talk shows, you know, you'd think that would be a no-no if you're trying to be a nobody. So... 

[00:33:45] AJ: Well maybe because he's trying to, like, he thinks that he has a new identity, so he thinks that he's, he could be out there because he's a new person. But it doesn't really seem like Johnny, but I don't know. And like, it just seems weird because it seems like, okay, there's nothing. They just like, it's just like, oh, this random person who's in the White House briefing room randomly, he must be Johnny Gosch. Like, I don't really know where that specific connection comes. Like, just because he's kind of an unknown person, why he was connected to it. Just because Noreen and her PI say that they think he is. But what else do they have on him? 

[00:34:21] Katie: Yeah, it seems like just something else Noreen is latching on to something that's far fetched because she wants to believe it. 

[00:34:27] AJ: And she said that she wants to get a DNA test from this man. She will, she has reason to believe that it is, could be Johnny Gosch. But it's kind of vague on like what the nature of the information she has. And I don't really know, but it always comes up in everyone who covers this case, talks about it. And there's like a whole Reddit thread about this person. I don't believe it to be true. I don't think Jeff Gannon is Johnny Gosch at all. And then some people are like, "well, I looked on his Wikipedia page and it doesn't say anything about his family." I'm like, okay. That's nothing. Like, I just...

[00:35:02] Katie: Yeah and why isn't Jeff's family coming forward and be like, "This is our kid that grew up with us", so like it's not Johnny Gosch.

[00:35:08] AJ: Yeah, and like they never do. No one knows where he's from, where he grew up, anything about him. He does seem to kind of be a little bit older than how then Johnny would be, because in 2005, he was saying he was 48. I believe which wouldn't have been the right age for Johnny. But... 

[00:35:26] Katie: Well, he probably would have changed his age, trying not to be Johnny. That would be a good thing to do. 

[00:35:32] AJ: Yeah. Yeah. So, but I mean, he kind of looks like he could be 48 though. Like he doesn't look, he doesn't look like a 28 year old person or whatever, or however old he would be. You would be actually would have been like 35 by that point. I don't know. I don't know. So it's just another thing in this case that it's like, I don't know what its about. Who this person is? I don't know, but I just had to mention it because it's part of this case and a part of the lore. So just a few other interesting things. And I just want to preface this kind, this part by saying that all this stuff that I'm going to mention are claims, I believe from Noreen's book. No legitimate news source has ever said any of this stuff, but I just wanted to mention it because it's kind of part of the conversation as well. So also this Mile Higher Podcast that I listened to, covers this case, they mentioned that there were rumors that Johnny's father John actually was a regular and he attended clubs that Lawrence E. King was known to either visit or conduct some of these illegal activities in. Apparently he knew that man, and like I said, I could not find this claim from a legitimate news source. So just take it for what it is worth. Noreen Gosch like I said, wrote and self published a book on the case and she makes similar claims against John as well. And she basically bashes him in this book, as far as I know, I haven't read the book. But people online, the reviews of the book basically say that she is basically implicating him as being involved. All the stuff from the phone call that he got from that wrong number that he had a conversation with on the phone. And they ended up getting a divorce in 1993. So by this point they've been divorced and they got divorced just because of, I guess, the stress of Johnny's disappearance and all of that stuff. So by 93, they're already divorced and she's basically been bashing him in any way she can since then. Tried to implicate him as being a part of this as well. So she also claims that John Gosch knew Paul Bonacci before Noreen knew about him and that John went and visited him in prison at some point. And when he went to go visit Paul, he was with another woman who he claimed was his wife Noreen, even though it wasn't. So then when Noreen finally finds out about Paul's claims and visits the prison herself, like back in 89 or 1990, when all this came out, she says that Paul's attorney said, "Oh it's good to see you again," as if they had met before. And Paul said that she looked, was making comments saying that she looked different than before basically insinuating that he hadn't seen her before and met her before. But like I said, absolutely none of these claims have been substantiated or proven. So take it for what it's worth. Having, not read the book, I can't say for myself what accusations she makes for certain, but this is just what I've seen online about these accusations that she's making in the book. So, I don't know. But Noreen has since been very active in anti child sex trafficking advocacy. Since Johnny's disappearance she helped to pass the Johnny Gosch bill through the Iowa state legislature in 1984, which requires law enforcement to immediately investigate missing persons cases where foul play is suspected. As a result of this the 72 hour rule is no longer in play. Thank god! What do you guys think of Noreen? What do you think of, do you think John's involved or what? 

[00:38:46] Stephanie: No, I don't think so. I think, I mean, it's sad that they got divorced because of all the stress around Johnny's disappearance and stuff, but I don't really think he has anything to do with it. And Noreen, I kind of get where she's coming from, she's stressed, she's, doesn't have really a support system and she's trying to do this investigation by herself. So I can see where she's getting frustrated and tired and just want some answers. So I, I kind of feel bad for Noreen. I don't think John had anything to do with it. I think he's just, it just unfortunate that Noreen is just taking her frustrations out on him. 

[00:39:30] Katie: Uhhh! It's so weird. Like John's involvement in all this. I can't really like put my finger on what I think about him and the fact that he brought some random woman to the jail to pretend to be Noreen. If that's true, like that's such a weird detail. And like, why, like, why would you... 

[00:39:45] AJ: Like why would he pretend that it was Noreen? 

[00:39:47] Katie: Well, yeah, exactly. And you don't think you're ever going to get caught with that. Like, people do stuff like that and it's like, well, people are going to find out and that's just a weird thing to do. 

[00:39:55] AJ: But it also, I just can't think why he would like, why, why would he say this is Noreen? Who was this other woman? But I just don't understand why he wouldn't just say who that person was.

[00:40:02] Katie: I know, I don't know either. It's, that's why me, I'm saying that's such a weird thing and it doesn't make sense. Uh, I don't know. I feel like Noreen and yet, like Steph said, that I feel, I definitely feel bad for her. She's, she lost her son and she obviously has never recovered from it. But at least she's getting some good, its not like she is some woman trying to get attention from it. She's actually doing good things. Like you mentioned, like the Johnny Gosch bill or whatever. So I mean, yeah, it's really sad. I don't, I don't think, I don't think everything that she has to say is true. She might think it is, but I completely, I feel like I'm on her side more than anybody else in this. 

[00:40:44] AJ: I think maybe if I had to put my finger on it, I think it's maybe one of those things where she went down the rabbit hole of all of these conspiracy theories and started to see all of these things and then was just convinced that these certain things have happened. And then she's trying to like, make sense of these little things. And then it's like making connections between things that aren't legitimate. So I don't think she's out there actively trying to deceive the public and trying to, you know, bash her husband, ex-husband or whatever. Like I just, I don't think that's the case, but maybe she did go a little bit too deep into it. And now she's kind of, lost it a little bit. I don't know. I can't say, like I said, I haven't read her book. 

[00:41:25] Stephanie: And I feel like a lot of the witnesses that said that they did see John at these nightclubs or whatever, I feel like that's just hearsay because she was not there, that's just somebody telling her what they saw. Like that could have not been true. It could have been someone that looked like him, but so I, I wouldn't really credit those witnesses, but... 

[00:41:47] AJ: But it's also, it's so hard to say, because I say like a lot of this stuff that Noreen saying, like all these encounters, she had, the photos, like none of this stuff has ever been proven or confirmed by law enforcement so you're like, okay, well, if it hasn't been proven, like surely it would have been looked into if they're not confirming it. But then it's also like, well, if they are in on it, then obviously they're not going to confirm it, they're going to deny it and they're going to shove it under the rug. Right? So I don't know what is actually happening. And then also there's a good point that's brought up in the documentary. They interview someone, I think he's a journalist and he mentions it's like, maybe it's not a whole like, cause there was a lot of talk about maybe the police department was in on it and in Iowa and that's why they weren't doing anything. And then he said, maybe it's not that it's the whole police department that's involved, but maybe one officer was involved and then the whole department kind of stepped in to cover for this one officer. So it's not like the conspiracy of the entire system, and everyone is involved in this huge child sex ring. Like, it's like a few individuals within the system are, but then the system is covering up for itself. You know what I mean? I don't know, but I mean, you still complicit then if you're not coming forward, if you know that someone's done something and you're covering for them, then your a piece of shit as well. But... 

[00:43:03] Katie: Yeah. Or maybe like, they're covering for this one officer, but they don't actually know the extent of the crime. They think maybe it's the littler than what he actually did do and they're just trying to like help him out with that, but not realizing it's like this huge, like sex ring kind of thing. But yeah, but also going back to like Noreen, I just feel like she has gone down the rabbit hole. Yes. And she's clinging on to every piece of information and every piece that's ever come out there as true, because she doesn't really have anything else to hold on to. So I feel like it's just her desperate attempt to really get to the bottom of what happened. And she probably does sound crazy because she is believing everything that's out there and she can't differentiate between what's fake and what's not. 

[00:43:44] AJ: Yeah, that's true. And also like, I didn't even, again I kind of took some stuff out that I didn't feel was important, but there's also this person who called for ransom saying that they had Johnny early on, like really early on, and then when they failed to bring the ransom, they said, "You are never going to see him again." And then it was this other guy who was convicted for wire fraud, cause said he was like in a motorcycle gang that had kidnapped Johnny, like all of this stuff. So it was like one of those cases where it's like millions, not millions, but so many different people coming forward. So I don't know. So I kind of had to take out some information and I don't know again, what's true and what's not so, I just wanted to preface all of this by saying that a lot of this has not been proven necessarily by like law enforcement. But I can't decipher if it's because it's true and they're not, and they're involved and they don't want to confirm it, or if it's just not true and they're saying, "Well, she's crazy" and trying to like blame people who aren't even... 

[00:44:37] Stephanie: And it's crazy to think that it's been 40 years and nothing has really come of it. Like when, like maybe we will never find out whatever happened to Johnny Gosch. He might not even be alive now. 

[00:44:51] AJ: Yeah. And a lot of people say it's possibly could have been abducted that day and killed that day and just discarded. They never found his body. And then all this other stuff was just random trolls coming forward and trying to extort her for money because they knew she was so desperate that they said, "Oh just pay me $20,000 and I'll give you your son", you know? So. There's the possibility that that's also happening here too. But I mean, obviously it's clear that he was abducted, so obviously that is true. We know he was abducted and it's not far-fetched to believe that he was put into a child sex ring. Like we all know that that is a very real thing, unfortunately. So that can be true, but I don't know how much of it is like, oh, governmental conspiracy. So it could, it, it could just be a totally separate ring of a few people who are involved in it that have nothing to do with these powerful people. But also they might be, I don't know. 

[00:45:45] Katie: Yeah. And it seems like the, there was like a few people involved in the abduction. Like I feel like that person that was pretending or actually was a police officer was kind of setting it all up, you know, like go on your own on your paper route. And then there was the guy in the car and then the guy following him. So I feel like there was at least like three people that maybe this is like their thing. Cause they were able to get him in like 20 minutes. Right? So it was like, they set up this whole thing and they've done it before and they did it again and they're just able to get kids that way and that it's working for them. So I feel like that's not too far fetched. But yeah, it's so hard to differentiate everything else that goes on that went on. It's crazy. 

[00:46:22] AJ: Yeah. And I feel like there's not one person in all of this that I, 100% believe with anything. I mean, I believe Paul Bonacci but I don't know. I don't know, can you just take everything he says at face value? I don't know if you can, but I, I believe him because like I said, watching the videos and all of that stuff and all of this information lines up, he has to have known Johnny, he saw all the stuff on his, all that, like the scars on his body, like he has to know him. But he, so he could have been in this child sex ring with Johnny, but that has nothing to do with the FBI or the government. You know. That's why I don't know where that line is drawn. It could be kind of a mix of everything. 

[00:47:04] Katie: I think. Yeah. Bits and pieces of everything is true, but it's just hard to see what actually is and where everything fits in. Yeah, it's a, it's a really complicated one. 

[00:47:14] AJ: It's yeah, it's really complex plus so many different theories and also there is like a little bit of a disclaimer that I wanted to put out there because I don't want people trashing us when they hear it. Because I wanted to say that I was hesitant about whether I was going to cover this case on the show or not. I originally was looking into it for last season. Then chose to go in a different direction because I wasn't, and I wasn't sure if I was going to revisit it this season. And that was mostly because I do feel like there's a lot of details in this case that kind of play into a lot of QAnon conspiracy theories that are out there. Now I know you guys are a little bit familiar with QAnon because I've talked to you about it before, but they're basically crazy nut jobs, to put it simply. While I obviously acknowledged that child and human trafficking are very real and serious issues, the whole QAnon movement, which for those of you who don't know is a super far right conspiracy theory, that has a large group of people who believe that there's a massive child sex trafficking ring that exists with major politicians involved. For example, they believe Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop in some weird random town. That's it and I am not being facetious. That is a legitimately thing that they believe. Its crazy. And so for context, many people who believe in the QAnon conspiracy theories, a lot of those folks were involved in the Capitol Hill insurrection in the US on January 6th, 2021. So a lot of those people who are Trump supporters and far-right conspiracy theories, like that's that kind of crowd. So there are a long list of beliefs that this, quite frankly, I think a terrorist organization, holds the child sex trafficking one is a major component of it. And I think that they take the very serious issue of child sex trafficking and use it as a means to like plot conspiracy theories and overthrow democracy and incite terrorism within the US and worldwide. So I just wanted to say that because I think a lot of it, when you go down the rabbit hole, kind of plays into that narrative of like, oh, there's this child sex ring that everyone in the government's involved in. It's huge. And like, when you look at things like Jeffrey Epstein and like, we know that exists, like we know that that is a very real thing and there's people in power, but I just wanted to put that out there and put that disclaimer, because I don't want anyone to, to think that by covering this case, we're kind of buying into that sort of narrative that the QAnon people will have you believe because they're a crazy bunch of people I'll tell you. And so where I sit on this case is that I believe Johnny was abducted and part of a child sex trafficking ring of some sort. I think the stories by Noreen and Paul Bonacci are credible, or at least parts of them are. But I have absolutely no idea how far reaching or how high up it actually goes. And I want no part in any type of QAnon theory on that topic. So is this whole case and Noreen's story, just a massive conspiracy theory that might play into the QAnon ideology? , Who knows. Maybe, but it could also be a legitimate case of a 12 year old boy who was subjected to a massive child sex trafficking ring, completely separate and unrelated to politicians, government, et cetera. I just wanted to mention this because I couldn't help, but think of this while I was researching the case. So whether you believe Noreen or not, whether you believe Paul or not, it is clear that there's a 12 year old boy who went missing 40 years ago and has never been found. That much is true as for all the other stuff, who knows? So those are kind of my thoughts about this case overall? What do you guys think? 

[00:50:45] Katie: Yeah, it is hard to believe every single thing that the husband said, and that people think might be true. But yeah, like you said, obviously there's a 12 year old that went missing, never been found. Something happened to him. Somebody knows something and whether how big or how small it is. Like, that's what you need to take away from this is that there's still somebody missing out there. 

[00:51:08] AJ: Yeah. And I just wanted to put that disclaimer, cause like I said, I don't, when you go into the rabbit hole of it, it's like kind of kicking you down that path of these like conspiracy theories about all of these, I don't know. That's why I felt like I had to mention it. I couldn't not mention it because I didn't want people to think that we believed it. But I also think the case is super interesting and like, who knows what the truth is? I don't know. 

[00:51:37] Stephanie: Maybe by doing this episode, maybe somebody will come forward and maybe something will happen and somebody will be like, "Oh yeah, that case." And look into it and be, maybe it will be solved. But its unfortunate that people like QAnon or like those type of people that take a serious topic and make it like conspiracy theory. It's kind of sad in my opinion, but... 

[00:52:02] AJ: Yeah. 

[00:52:03] Stephanie: But all we know is that a 12 year old boy is still missing 40 years later and we need to know where he is and find him.

[00:52:10] AJ: So you guys, if you had like one theory, what do you guys, if you had to like overall sum it up? Like, what do you think? Like do you think he was a part of a child sex trafficking ring? Do you think he was with Paul Bonacci? 

[00:52:19] Stephanie: Yeah, I think he was with Paul. I feel like those details that Paul said are just too accurate and too detailed for me not to believe that he never saw Johnny. So maybe they were in this sex ring together, who knows, but I do believe that he was with Johnny at whatever time.

[00:52:41] Katie: Yeah. I kind of tend to believe that as well, that sex ring kidnapping is what happened. 

[00:52:50] Stephanie: Because we know that sex rings are real and they're still a real thing as of today and very serious things. So that theory is not something, it can just be brushed off. I feel like... 

[00:53:03] Katie: Yeah it's not far-fetched at all. It's like... 

[00:53:05] Stephanie: No. 

[00:53:06] AJ: I think that's honest, like likely. Yeah. I think what happened and especially because when you have, okay, so you have the dollar bill, like the note on the dollar bill, then you have that typewritten letter and then you have these photos. Are all of those true? Maybe not. Is one of them true? Maybe. I don't know. I just feel like you have a series of things. One of them has to be true. And if they are, then he is alive and he's writing these notes, which means he wasn't killed, which means, who knows what he's was subjected to in that period of time. So, yeah, but I mean, this case is can still is considered cold, but it's still considered open, but I don't necessarily expect the police or FBI to really do much because look, they haven't done much so far. Simple things and simple leads that they could have went down, obviously they didn't. So yeah. 

[00:53:52] Katie: Find out who owns that house. 

[00:53:54] AJ: It all comes back to the house. Who knows? 

[00:53:56] Stephanie: Well it does. If you find out who lived in that house and who was at the house. 

[00:53:59] AJ: But maybe they did. It's like, you can't help but think if they're being this reluctant to look into it, what role do they play? But like I said, I think there's bad apples everywhere. So yes, there could be some people who are really high up who are part of this, something like disgusting. I don't necessarily think that it's this huge, widespread, like governmental conspiracy that lots of people think or QAnon people think. Like, I don't think that necessarily, I think it might be a case of like individual people who are high up who are part of it. You know what I mean? Like I just think let's like, I don't, I don't think it goes too far to say that, like, it's a huge, everyone in the government, are all covering it up and they're all complicit. I think it's like maybe a few people within it are bad actors and Mike are doing nefarious things, but it's not the whole system. You know what I mean? 

[00:54:55] Katie: Yeah. It could be like, one police officer, but it's not the whole department. It could be a politician, but it's not the whole government, like that kind of thing. 

[00:55:04] AJ: And they, maybe there are people who do then try to cover it up for, to protect one individual person. But that's why it's like, I wanted like to clarify this kind of difference. Cause I think it's important. And I think like I'm not naive to the fact that there's like about some fucked up crazy people who are high up, obviously Jeffrey Epstein. Like we've seen that, we know that is a thing that exists. So we can't be naive to that fact, but also I don't want to be too gullible and say, well, I think it's a government conspiracy. Like we don't know. And like I said, none of these things that Noreen has said have been confirmed, so it's all her. But I also don't want to be mean to her and say, oh, well, she's just lying and she's delusional. Like, I don't want to say that either. So I don't know.

[00:55:49] Katie: I don't know what to believe. 

[00:55:51] AJ: Yeah. I remember I said, I don't know a lot in this thing cause I just, I don't know. But I thought it was interesting case, I mean, clearly gone over for two hours on this one. So it's going to be two part for sure. But yeah, crazy case. That's the case of Johnny Gosch. 

[00:56:05] So thank you for listening to both parts of this Johnny Gosch case. Let us know your thoughts about it. What are your theories? And you can follow us on all the social medias as always on Instagram @crimefamilypodcast, on Twitter @crimefamilypod1 and on Facebook at Crime Family Podcast, and send us your suggestions via email, or maybe your feedback to crimefamily podcast@gmail.com. We would love to hear from you and yeah.

[00:56:25] So thank you for your listening to this two partners. And we'll be back next week with another episode, which hopefully is not as crazy and fucked up. Bye. 

[00:56:35] Katie: Bye. 

[00:56:36] Stephanie: Bye.