The Franklin Files

Shadowman · Senior Member

Paul Bonacci

Shadowman · Senior Member

February 22, 2009

First of all yes I am the real Paul Bonacci. I can tell you all Alisha is alive and well. I have had no contact with her well since before the Franklin case. But I have friends who are in regular contact with her.

I can also tell you I do not live in New England, never have never will. I also do not live in Omaha. I do live in Nebraska.

David did call my house, but he sounded a little unstable and I want nothing to do with that. I am doing well and I wish people will remember that my family has nothing to do with this and just leave them out.

I am not a mental case and am not Suffering from the past. I am an over comer, and do not look at myself as a victim. I am not living in fear and I don't dwell on the past. I would rather live in the present and look to the future.

So for all who pity me please don't I am not a child anymore I am a 41 year old Man. I am a husband and father who is enjoying my life that I have made for myself. As for some thinking I have been paid somehow. I was awarded a Million dollar Judgment against Larry King, yet I have not received a penny of it. If I ever do DeCamp will receive 40% and any amount I would receive will go toward starting a Foundation to help abused kids.

As for Johnny he is an adult and from every contact I have had wants to live his life FREE from any circus that his life would become if he was to come out of hiding.

I realize some of you may doubt that I am really Paul. I can tell you that Nick Bryant is a good friend and could verify what I say. Also his book is coming out the Beginning of April as his lawyers are going through the thousands of documents provided to him. It is not a conspiracy as to why it is taking so long to come out. After he was almost finished gathering information. More people decided to come out and talk for the first time. That of course pushed the book back. Also this book was not an easy thing to write. Nick said it is a very dark book and mentally challenging to him personally. My wife who is in frequent contact with him said on numerous occasions that Nick sounds very depressed with all this information.

I have laughed at many of these post as some people seem to think of us as still kids when we are all hitting middle age. If Johnny wants to come out some day he will. Nothing these post say will convince him to come out.

One other note the Jimmy Gibson that was busted for cocaine was a different guy. I never knew what to think of Jimmy as I did not know him very well. And was warned by some of my friends to keep my distance.

If you have any questions for me I will answer them if I deem them serious questions

Shadowman · Senior Member

FOIA

February 25, 1999

To Whom It Concerns:

The trial on February 5, 1999 resulted in a million dollar judgement. I believe that judgement, completely independent of the Default Judgement in the case because the singular issue was damages, makes it clear that the evidence presented was credible and Judge Urbom acted on that basis and to send a message to a number of individuals (both clean and dirty) who were a part of the Franklin saga. I believe the U.S. Attorney has no choice but to either CHARGE THE WITNESSES WITH PERJURY HAVING TESTIFIED UNDER OATH IN A FEDERAL COURT ON VERY MATERIAL MATTERS (From Murder to Bribery to Perjury to the most vile corruption involving young people) OR, THE U.S. ATTORNEY HAS AN OBLIGATION TO INIVESTIGATE. FURTHER INTO THE FRANKLIN SAGA AND REOPEN MATTERS This time there ARE PICTURES. This time RUSTY NELSON exists and testified completely contrary to Chief Wadman's testimony under oath to the legislature. This time Noreen Gosch validated the credibility and story of Paul Bonacci... and a lot, lot more. At minimum some Federal or State authority (Whether it is a Judge. Attorney General. Prosecutor. etc.) has an obligation to reopen particularly the Alisha Owen case. If my witnesses in Court on February 5, 1999 are telling the truth, then Alisha Owen is also. If Alishn Owen is LYING, as a jury said then my witnesses are lying, It appears to me to put the U.S. Attorney and Nebraska Attomey General and Judicial System on the horns of a dilemma - and failure to act would to me at least appear to be deliberate obstruction of justice at a minimum.

Respectfully,

[signature]

John W. DeCamp

DeCamp Legal Services

=====

    FILED
US DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
99 F E B 22 AM 8 : 14
GARY D MCFARLAND
    CLERK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
      FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

PAUL A. BONACCI,                                                4:CV91-33037
          Plaintiff,

vs.                                                                              MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

LAWRENICE E. KING,

Defendant.

On February 27, 1998, I found that default judgment should be entered against the defendant Lawrence E. King in favor of the plaintiff, Paul A. Bonaccl. A trial on the issue of the damages due the plaintiff by that defendant was had on February 5, 1999.

Two counts are alleged against the defendant King in the complaint. Count V alleges a conspiracy with public officers to deprive the plaintiff of his civil rights, designed to continue to subject the plaintiff to emotional abuse and to prevent him from informing authorities of criminal conduct. Count VII charges battery, false imprisonment, infliction of emotional distress, negligence and conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of civil rights. Between December 1980 and 1988, the complaint alleges, the defendant King continually subjected the plaintiff to repeated sexual assaults, false imprisonments, infliction of extreme emotional distress, organized and directed satanic rituals, forced the plaintiff to "scavenge" for children to be a part of the defendant King's sexual abuse and pornography ring, forced the plaintiff to engage in numerous sexual contacts with the defendant King and others and participate in deviate sexual games and masochistic orgies with other minor children. The defendant King's default has made those allegations true as to him. The issue now is the relief to be granted monetarily.

The now uncontradicted evidence is that the plaintiff has suffered much. He has suffered bums, broken fingers, beatings of the head and face and other indignities by the wrongful actions of the defendant King. In addition to the misery of going through the experiences just related over a period of eight years, the plaintiff has suffered the lingering results to the present time. He is a victim of multiple personality disorder, involving as many as fourteen distinct personalities aside from his primary personality. He has given up a desired military career and received threats on his life. He suffers from sleeplessness, has bad dreams, has difficulty in holding a job, is fearful that others are following him, fears getting killed, has depressing flashbacks, and is verbally violent on occasion, all in connection with the multiple personality disorder and caused by the wrongful activities of the defendant King.

Almost certainly the defendant King has little remaining financial resources, but a fair judgment to compensate the plaintiff is necessary. For the sixteen years since the abuse of the plaintiff began I conclude that a fair compensation for the damages he has suffered is $800,000.

A punitive award also is justified, but the amount needs to be limited because of the small effect that such a judgment would have on the defendant King, given his financial condition and his presence now in prison. I deem a punitive award of $200,000 to be adequate.

Dated February 19, 1999.

BY THE COURT

[Signature]

Warren K. Urbom
United States Senior District. Judge
=====

    FILED
US DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
99 F E B 22 AM 8 : 15
GARY D MCFARLAND
CLERK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

PAUL A. BONACCI,                                                 4:CV91-3037
Plaintiff,

vs.                                                                              JUDGMENT

LAWRENCE E. KING,

Defendant.

            IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff shall have judgment against the defendant Lawrence E. King in the amount of $1,000,000 and taxable court costs in accordance with the Memorandum of Decision of today, together with interest at the rate of 4.584 percent per annum.

Dated February 19, 1999.

BY THE COURT

[Signature]

Warren K. Urbom

United States Senior District Judge

Shadowman · Senior Member

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

PAUL A. BONACCI, (4:91CV3037)

Plaintiff, vs. TRANSCRIPT

LAWRENCE E. KING, Defendants.

Hearing held before the Honorable Warren K. Urbom, Senior United States District Judge, on February 5, 1999 in Lincoln, Nebraska.

APPEARANCES:

Mr. John DeCamp

Attorney at Law

414 South 1lth Street

Lincoln, Nebraska for Plaintiff

I -N-D-E-X

WITNESS Direct Cross Redirect Recross

Noreen Gosch 5

Russell Nelson 36

Paul Bonacci 101

Denise Bonacci 155

(At 9:01, the following proceedings were held.)

THE COURT: This is the case of Paul A. Bonacci versus Lawrence E. King, 4:91CV3037. I see the plaintiff, Mr. Paul Bonacci, here with his counsel Mr. DeCamp. I do not see anyone representing Lawrence E. King. Is there anyone here representing Mr. King? I take it not. A default judgment has been entered against him. And the purpose of this proceeding is to determine the amount of damages that are to be awarded. Mr. DeCamp, you may proceed. Want to make an opening statement or not is entirely up to you. You may do that or call your witnesses as you choose.

MR. DECAMP: May it please the Court, a very, very brief opening statement. What I want to establish here today, Your Honor, if at all possible, is the entire picture or scene in which Mr. Bonacci lived and prove to this Court's satisfaction the stories he tells in his petition are in fact true and the trauma that results from those stories is in fact very real. And even, Your Honor, we would hope that the Court, after hearing some of the evidence and information today for the first time ever, would maybe even on its own initiative take some appropriate action to correct some other wrongs or launch some other investigations that may be needed, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's not within my authority. So I can't do that. But I can award damages. And that's why we're here today.

MR. DECAMP: Yes, Your Honor. So my first witness I would call would be Noreen Gosch.

THE COURT: Come forward, please.

THE CLERK: Maam, would you state your full name and spell it, please?

THE WITNESS: Noreen Natalie Gosch.

THE CLERK: Noreen is?

THE WITNESS: Beg your pardon?

THE CLERK: Would you spell Noreen?

THE WITNESS: N-o-r-e-e-n.

THE CLERK: Natalie?

THE WITNESS: N-a-t-a-l-i-e. And Gosch, G-o-s-c-h.

THE CLERK: Noreen Natalie Gosch. Noreen, N-o-r-e-e-n, Natalie Gosch, G-o-s-c-h.

NOREEN N. GOSCH
Called as a witness, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

THE COURT: Sorry, tell me again, how do you spell your last name?

THE WITNESS: G-o-s-c-h.

THE COURT: G-o-s-c-h?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. DeCamp.

MR. DECAMP: Yes, Your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DECAMP:

Q. Noreen, you arrived in Lincoln last night, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And where is your home?

A. West Des Moines, Iowa.

Q. And how long have you lived there?

A. 28 years.

Q. And do you have family there?

A. Not any more.

Q. Did you have family there?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Who did you have as part of your family?

A. I had my children and my husband.

Q. How many children?

A. Three children. The two older children have moved away and married. My youngest son was kidnapped and as a result of a lot of ensuing problems we divorced, my ex-husband and I, and I don't know where he's at.

Shadowman · Senior Member

Q. Your son was a paperboy in Des Moines, is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. And his name was what?

A. John David Gosch.

Q. Johnny Gosch he's typically referred to in the newspapers, is that correct?

A. Johnny Gosch, yes. He had his paper route for 13 months running. And had been an employee of the Des Moines Register.

Q. And how old was he when he was kidnapped?

A. He was 12 years old.

Q. And what year was he kidnapped?

A. September 5th, 1982.

Q. And has he been located?

A. Yes and no.

Q. Well come back to that.

A. Okay.

Q. Was the crime investigated?

A. When my son was kidnapped that morning it was my utter total shock and amazement that the law enforcement did not respond the way I had envisioned that a kidnapping would be investigated. The investigating police officer to take the initial report did not come to our home till 45 minutes after I called in my son being missing. And in the length of time that it took him to arrive I had already telephoned the district manager for the newspaper, found out the names of all the witnesses that were there that morning. Johnny was kidnapped a short distance from our home and also within a block from the paper drop site. In that short amount of time I was able to contact all the witnesses, talk to them. I found out the description of the man who was talking to him on the comer. The description of the car. And when the police officer came in the only thing he brought in was the sheet of paper to fill out for the initial report. And I began telling him everything I had learned. And he looked at me and he said, well, has your son ever run away before? I said, he's never run away. He was taken. And I have these statements. I later found out that -- well, then the police officer left and we didn't I see anybody from the police department until 3:00 o'clock that same afternoon. My call went in at 7:30 a.m. I later found out that the police did in fact contact the witnesses that I had reported I talked to but they didn't I even so much as bring a clipboard into their homes to take notes. And all the witnesses thought it was very strange since there was a little boy missing as to why the police would not even take notes as to what the witnesses had seen.

Q. Since the kidnapping occurred have you become extremely active in the issue of missing children?

A. I have become extremely active in both the avenues of missing children and also trying to find my own son and solve his case. As to why he was taken, who was responsible.

Q. Your son's picture was one of the first ones to appear, for example, on milk cartons, wasn't it?

A. Yes, the milk carton effort was started in Des Moines, Iowa by Anderson Erickson Dairy. And my son and Eugene Martin were the first two missing children to be ever put on a milk carton.

Q. Who is Eugene Martin?

A. Eugene Martin is another paper carrier from West Des Moines or from Des Moines and he was kidnapped within a short time after Johnny, less than two years.

Q. And has he been located?

A. He has not been located to my knowledge. During the course of the investigation, the first year of it, the FBI paid a visit to our home and said they would not be entering the case. The police chief just would not order things to be done. They would not bring in aerial search, they wouldn't bring in a K-9 team, they didn't do the normal things that you would do to try and rule out a murder, for instance, if there was a missing person and a body somewhere. So I contacted the National Guard and they told me that, yes, they would use their helicopters but they would charge me $600 an hour in order to do it. And that became a news item, because we did have a lot of press coverage on this story. And a TV station from Omaha offered their helicopter for free. And that's when I began working very closely with the media to assist me.

Q. And you over the years have worked closely with the media, is that correct?

A. Yes, I have. They have been most helpful. I have a great many allies within the media. I treat them fairly and they know that when they speak to me I speak the truth. I have no reason to embellish anything and therefore I've become reliable and someone they know ifthey do a story on they're not going to have to do a retraction.

Q. Back to the issue of participation in groups and with politicians that have written laws on this, have you been active in that area?

A. Yes. Within the first year after Johnny was missing, I realized that partly the reason that no one looked for Johnny except his family was because there was no law on the books in Iowa or most any other state in the country specifying that the police would have to act sooner than 72 hours. Even though we had five witnesses that could describe the car, the man and various details of the kidnapping. So I wrote the first piece of legislation which became the Johnny Gosch bill. I got a senator and a representative to sponsor the bill in 24 both houses, same version, different numbers, in 25 hopes that one would pass. The first year it went down the funnel. I started the next year again and drummed the state capitol. I absolutely, they were sick of seeing me, I was up there. So, and then I went on the national speaking circuit. And I was all over the country speaking but whenever I was in Iowa I would pass a legislative sign up sheet and I would ask people that were of voting age to sign it. And then whenever we needed assistance or pressure to be brought to bear upon a representative or a senator we could activate a telephone tree and generate at least five hundred calls into the statehouse within an hour. And that became very successful because it was an election year.

Q. Did you get some laws passed?

A. Yes. The Johnny Gosch bill was passed in 1984, signed by the governor of Iowa, Governor Branstad, on July I st. While we were there at the signing there was a lot of press, and none of us knew that within a month and 10 days that that law would be put to the test. Because Eugene Martin was taken in August, a month following the signing of the Johnny Gosch bill into law. Then Missouri, Minnesota, Illinois, many other states contacted me. I testified before their legislatures and they have all adopted a version of the Johnny Gosch bill. And it stands in many other states as the Johnny Gosch law.

Q. And have you, you stated you worked with the media in trying to promote the laws and also in helping to find Johnny, can you describe some of that?

A. I did a lot of press conferences, a lot of TV shows, whenever there was information that could be safely released on Johnny I would release it so that we could keep the story alive. You can't keep saying Johnny Gosch is missing, Johnny Gosch is missing, or any other child, you have to provide the news media with something they can broadcast that's new news. So I learned to work very closely with them. I was also on all of the talk shows. There was a Home Box Office, HBO movie done about Johnny's case. I've been very active in all facets. But I think my greatest feeling of accomplishment of actually helping to protect other children, I founded the Johnny Gosch Foundation. And the IRS put us on a restrictive two year probationary situation in which we had to prove that we were helping other children. So that's when I developed my speaking tour, the program that I presented to help parents learn what a pedophile is, what they do and how they get children to come with them or to kidnap them or molest them. And that was probably the most rewarding and successful part of it because I was able to hands on actually help other families. And I know for a fact I've helped prevent other abductions.

Q. Have you then had contact and worked with a number of families that have ended up with missing children or kidnapped children?

A. Yes, kidnapped children, murdered children. And during that same timeframe between 1982 and 84 I worked very closely with the officials in Washington and I testified before the Justice Department as to the need for monies to be appropriated for a National Center For Missing Children. Myself and several other families who had suffered the same loss, we were all gathered together and we were told to tell our story and name names of who did what and who didn't do their jobs. And I did that. And so did the other families. And then a short time later the Justice Department appropriated the first 10 million dollars for the National Center For Missing Children. And I was invited to the openings and to the White House to meet with President Reagan.

Q. Noreen, I'm going to move to a slightly different area now. During the time that Johnny has been missing from when the original kidnapping occurred until the present, have you been contacted on many occasions with offers of assistance or people who claim they have knowledge of what happened?

A. I've had a lot of people contact me with information, sightings, things that they thought might be helpful. And in each case we would have our private investigators check it out to see if it was valid or not. And a lot of people were well meaning but some of the information wasn't good and some of it was. We were able to put together what was the start of a huge jigsaw puzzle by using the information we gathered. And after each national television appearance there would always be a generation of a great many leads that would come in for to us follow. Some good, some not so good.

Q. Did you ever have bogus contacts?

A. A few. A few that just were intent on trying to bilk us out of money or some reason or other attain some acclaim for themselves by attaching themself to a nationally known case. And with that I'm referring to psychics. There are only four that I know of that I've worked with, and I've talked to 700 psychics over the years, there's only been about four that are, truly have a gift in any area. The rest of them can only spell the word. But some of the ones that can only spell the words are the ones that wanted to tag on to our case and say they have been working on the Gosch case because it was a well known case.