The Franklin Cover-Up by John W. DeCamp

This post originally appeared on I Read Odd Books

Book: The Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska

Author: John W. DeCamp

Type of Book: Non-fiction, conspiracy theory, Satanic Panic, politics

Why I Consider This Book Odd: Okay, this is circuitous, but this book came across my radar in the following manner: When Jeff Gannon, porn star and male escort cum White House reporter/Bush apologist was outed, I was interested in finding out how such a man got high clearance press credentials. A web search on his name turned up a website devoted to a kidnapped child from Nebraska. Evidently, there are those who think Jeff Gannon is Johnny Gosch, whose mother Noreen maintains that after he was kidnapped in 1982, he was forced into child porn and prostitution (and no matter what, this is not going to be a discussion on poor Noreen – just don’t do it, okay?). The case of Johnny Gosch is as fascinating as it is sad, and on a conspiracy site, I found a thread accusing Hunter S. Thompson of being linked to the Gosch kidnapping because a “reputable” source said he filmed kiddie porn snuff films. The reputable source was this book. Yeah… When a book has you yelling, “Oh my god!” before you even read it, it’s gonna be odd.

Availability: This book was updated and is still in print. You can get a copy here:

Comments: Hoo boy. This is some excellent conspiracy theory, in that it is amazingly insane and involved. On one level, I actually believe about 1/8th of this book. The rest is just so whacked and beyond the realm of reason but with just enough grains of truth here and there that you can’t help but get sucked in.

First, let’s eliminate the whole Hunter S. Thompson thing. There were two sentences in the book that referred to Hunter Thompson as someone who filmed kiddie snuff porn. The person making the accusation is a man who evidently suffered from Dissociative Identity Disorder (or Multiple Personality Disorder as it was called when this book was initially written). I have no idea what DeCamp really knows of Thompson, but he calls him a “well known sleaze-culture figure,” whatever that means. It does not appear as if Thompson was ever visually identified by Paul Bonacci, the man making the claim, and no greater research went into proving it. (ETA: A commenter below pointed out that it was Anton Chaitkin who called HST a “wellknown sleeze-culture figure. I re-read and sure enough, I had misattributed the quote.)  Evidently another young woman claimed Thompson tried to make her watch a snuff film but she didn’t watch whatever she claims he wanted her to see.  Was it the horror film Snuff?  Was it Cannibal Holocaust, which some still believe qualifies as a snuff film because of the live animal deaths included in it?  Was she making it up, did she misunderstand?  We don’t know.  All we have is an unverified statement from some woman and two lines in this book attributed to a young man whose origins no one has been able to trace and whose lies/fantasies have fueled a bizarre conspiracy theory.

This book was initially released in 1992. Had anyone any evidence that Thompson filmed children being killed during sex, he would have been investigated thoroughly. Thompson was a man who showed no proclivities towards abuse of children or respect of authority to the extent he would have kept quiet about such a horrific thing out of fear of what would happen to him.  Thompson was a thorn in the side of the government and authority in general – had he been involved in something so vile police would have been only too glad to investigate, as glad as he would have been to expose anyone who killed children on film. That all that seems to be out there to support this claim are the two lines from this book and some unclear claim from someone else sort of closes the case. But if that is not enough, bear in mind that Bonacci claims Thompson filmed kiddie snuff porn in the 1980s. Thompson already had a very successful career as a journalist and an author then. He didn’t need the money, had it been a part of an investigation into political corruption he would have reported on it gleefully, if not paranoiacally, and given his nature, had he been in the wrong place at the wrong time, he would have blown a whistle long before he took his own life.

So let there be no more said on this topic. Anyone who wants to discuss it here can, but I won’t reply. On your head be it if you decide to smear the name of a man whose career completely belied any association with such deviance without any proof other than hearsay from a fragile man who makes all sorts of extraordinary claims because one suspects he may be too mentally ill not to make such claims.

Back to the book… This book has it all, for the seasoned conspiratologist. It has Satanic Panic, with cabals of Satanists killing children, burning their bodies and grinding up their bones and teeth. It has a ring of pedophiles all the way up to the White House, flying out kids from Nebraska for sexual purposes. It makes reference to militias, Oklahoma City, the Montana Seven, the Monarch Project, Bohemian Grove, the Gosch kidnapping (but no Jeff Gannon, alas – perhaps DeCamp will issue a new edition?), the utter shittiness of Bob Kerrey (a subject on which I whole-heartedly agree with the author, because I can easily see a man who lied about being a war criminal for so many years lying about all the other things DeCamp claims), Iran-Contra, LaRouche, a conspiracy to murder witnesses and more and more.

Honestly, there is too much to go into even for my verbose nature.

But on the most basic level, there is a kernel that can be believed in this book, though like I said, 7/8 of it, if not more, should be dismissed. The Franklin Credit Union in Omaha was run by a man named Larry King (no, not that Larry King), who embezzled approximately $40 million and undoubtedly molested children. The credit union was probably involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. Though no real trace seems to have been done on the money he stole, it would appear most of that money embezzled went into parties, stretch limos and access to private planes. King probably did have the sex parties described in the book, though I think the truth of the situation probably ended at flying some of the older kids to other locations to have sex with King. I can see that happening, though most of the other stories are implausible.

Not all the kids were in complicit foster homes or kids of the street – didn’t the orphanages or parents notice when the kids, some youngsters, went missing for days on end as they were carted from one locale to the other for sex. Additionally, some of the things that the chief witnesses described could have caused grave harm and certainly permanent scars or physical damage. There is no mention of a physical examination given to any of the witnesses. Moreover, one of the witnesses claims she gave birth to a police chief’s child. A paternity demand to this day could prove her side of the story, and since she is serving years and years of jail time for perjury, that this step has not been taken is baffling. (ETA: Alisha Owen’s child has been definitively proven not to be the result of any sort of sexual activity between Alisha Owen and police chief Robert Wadman.  That is a huge problem for anyone who wants to believe Owen’s tales of institutionalized and systemic child rape condoned and committed by Omaha police.)

You have to keep in mind that DeCamp, while clearly holding some wacky beliefs, also fell down the rabbit hole in the 1980s when Michelle Remembers was still believed to be factual and not even psychologists knew how to question genuinely abused children without leading them to say all sorts of things that never happened in order to please the questioner. He is a true believer, and as such, dismisses lack of evidence as law enforcement involvement in the conspiracy, a media reticence as a form of institutionalized stonewalling (as if the media would really turn away a chance to score a scoop on a salacious story if there was any truth to it), and any evidence that disproves the Panic is a complicit act to encourage abuse of children. I don’t know exactly how men like DeCamp fall down the rabbit hole, and though they ultimately do more harm than good, I understand how it happens. So while I find DeCamp a little icky in other respects, his intent belief in the unbelievable does not surprise me.

Nor was it a surprise to find the unpleasant, sticky presence of Ted Gunderson, former FBI agent, in this book. The man believes in Satanic Panic to this day, but he also believes all kinds of bizarre things, as I will discuss in a moment.  He is either a loon or crazy like a fox and either way, he is dangerous. He is also lawsuit happy, suing people whom he thinks slander him, including people who have clear screws loose and should be pitied rather than sued. (Google Ted Gunderson and the name Barbara Hartwell and just marvel at the sadness of it all.) I can say without any hesitation that his investigative presence in the Johnny Gosch kidnapping (and sadly, as most believe, murder) has kept the vulnerable Noreen Gosch in a realm where she will believe anything as long as it means her son is alive. It has made her prey to con men and people who torment her. I dream of seeing Gunderson in a whacked-theory cage match with someone – I just can’t think of whom I would inflict Ted on. Art Bell has already won an out of court settlement against him for calling him a child molester so it will have to be someone else (and since it was an out of court settlement with a gag order, there are no firm facts and all the information out there comes from sources that I would rather not link to, lest I become overrun with avid true believers from the whole rainbow spectrum of conspiracy, and if you think I’m verbose…). Gunderson to this day believes the McMartin preschool molestation/Satanic ritual abuse case happened and has been a force behind sending innocent people to prison.  He is wicked, nasty and preys on the unstable and it’s not entirely logical for me to say that I automatically believe the opposite of anything he has to say, but that’s actually close to the truth.

The Franklin Scandal case is riddled by the same issues that plague every other Satanic Panic case. No bodies. The book reports that the children and babies who were killed were burned, and then their bones and teeth crushed into meal. What happened to that meal is a mystery because it would still be riddled with forensic evidence that would back these claims. Samples from sites where bone grinding occurred could to this day be sampled and tested for evidence of human remains. Additionally, some of the murdered kids were not the children of cult members that Satanic cults supposedly offer up as sacrifices. Where did these kids come from? The inclusion of Johnny Gosch’s sad story is likely an attempt to persuade readers to believe that missing children were used in cult rituals, but was any attempt made to match the descriptions of those the witnesses say they saw killed to recently abducted children? No, or at least no mention is made in the book about such an investigation.

The Satanic Panic was the Salem Witch Trials with a newer face. These trends of mass delusion and hysteria have always happened and will continue to happen. And I certainly do not believe that Paul Bonacci watched as a baby was sacrificed, nor do I think he was raped with a cattle prod-like instrument (how he could survive that without immediate emergency surgery is beyond belief) and I don’t think he was forced into necrophilia with a murdered child. I think he was molested, though, and it left him damaged beyond belief, and a bunch of adults led him to conclusions he knew they wanted him to reach.

Unlike the skeevy psychologist involved in the whole Michelle Remembers hoax, I don’t get the feeling that DeCamp wrote this book in a jaded manner in 1992, trying to cash in on a frightening cultural belief. I do, however, note that in the second edition, DeCamp is now working more with militias than SRA survivors. I find that interesting, but to reiterate, DeCamp did have some points to make that resonate with even a skeptic like me.

But there were elements of the book that are… off putting. Not the least that DeCamp was willing to defame Hunter S. Thompson as the worst sort of scum based on the eyewitness testimony of a very fragile witness. But there were other problems, too. I can’t go into every single one I have because this is a dense book, but I’ll touch on the highlights of just how DeCamp was not my cup of tea. In the minds of true believers, I can’t debunk a conspiracy anyway. All I can do is discuss some of the WTF moments in the book, moments when I felt kind of annoyed with DeCamp’s narration or disgust at the presence of Ted Gunderson.

One problem, as touched on above, is heavy reliance on witness testimony without any physical evidence or even common sense. For example, DeCamp believes Bonacci because Bonacci can describe in very sound detail an event that DeCamp himself attended, and that goes to the core of the issue of proof. On its face, it seems sound that if the kid had access to the same event that DeCamp attended, he would have the same details. But how could children have attended national fundraisers for the GOP to serve as sex partners and no one have any memory of them? There is no way to accept that every single person in attendance was a pedophile or a pedophile sympathizer and would keep silent about their peers committing wholesale child rape.  So if those kids were there, how were they explained? Some people brought their children, but how is it that the victims have memories of these events but no one remembers the presence of random children (and I use the word victims because no matter how you slice it, those kids ended up victims at the end of all of this, be it via literal abuse or just the infamy this case brought them)?

Could it be because they were fed information, perhaps even by DeCamp? Analysis of recordings of questioning tactics used in famous debunked Satanic Panic cases show how even people who think they are scrupulous questioners pass information to their subjects. The main questioner in the case is dead so all we see is what DeCamp shows, and he seldom shows the back and forth between Gary Caradori and the witnesses. Moreover, the stilted dialogue DeCamp uses to further conspiracy points also calls into question his own recall and willingness to fill in blanks, but I admit that’s a judgment call on my part.

I also assert, based on my reading, that DeCamp, a religious family man, has issues with homosexuals. He is quick to say otherwise, that his own brother died from AIDS and that he considered him a fine human being. Not to demean a sad death, but that is too close to the “some of my best friends are black” statement people use to deflect racism.

In a case where a man may have been sexually harassed by another man at work, the situation quickly becomes a homosexual cabal that pressured men into deviancy. The way DeCamp discusses homosexuality, even keeping in mind the context in which he is discussing it, makes it seems as if he sees homosexuality as something quite sinister.

“So tell me,” I said, “just what is at the bottom of it? If it is not laundered money involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, what the blazes is it? How could Larry King get away with this, without you or somebody else knowing what was going on? Looks to me as if he had to have one heck of a lot of powerful political protection at the highest levels.”

“Homosexuals,” Fenner said. “Franklin finances the biggest group of homosexuals any state has ever seen…”

“Are you telling me that the Franklin theft and scandal was just one big queer party, with a bunch of rich people who don’t want their involvement known?” I asked.

“Yes,” replied Fenner…

I can’t even be sarcastic here. Queer party. Even in the pre-PC language age, this is a dick statement, especially for a man with a gay brother.

There’s more.

Gray’s own sexual proclivities were the subject of an article in the July-August 1982 issue of The Deep Backgrounder (AND LOL AT THAT PARTICULAR TITLE), entitled “Reagan Inaugural Co-Chairman Powerful ‘Closet Homosexual’?” The Deep Backgrounder tabloid featured exposes of homosexual networks in Washington, DC…

Homosexual networks, eh? How very sinister. My god, will no one do anything about the Log Cabin Republicans? If DeCamp really has no issue with homosexuals, the way he uses words and the way he paints sinister scenes is questionable

DeCamp’s puritanism and willingness to discredit people on the basis of hearsay knowledge about their sexual habits runs deep in this book. This passage refers to an Assistant US Attorney who felt Alisha Owen was lying and was over the top in his attempts to get to her recant:

Long before Thalken’s behavior in dealing with Owen, his name had surfaced in Gary Caradori’s investigation, as an alleged pedophile who frequented adult book stores in Council Bluffs, Iowa.

Oh man, I’ve been in an adult book store. Several. In Dallas. Which is way seedier than Council Bluffs, Iowa. In fact, I suspect my very home, filled with IKEA chairs, cats and Better Homes and Gardens Christmas Cookie magazines, is seedier than Council Bluffs, Iowa. What, I wonder, could DeCamp find me guilty of? Also, hearsay, hearsay, hearsay. But then, all the pedophilia allegations in this book rely on hearsay. The only proven fact is that Larry King embezzled money.

The only parts worse than the implied gay bashing is how DeCamp justifies some of his other information. For the record, Larry King is a black man.

If King was involved with CIA money laundering, that jibes with a report from a member of Concerned Parents: “I heard from two different black people in North Omaha that King used to send limousines down to Offutt Air Force Base [home of the Strategic Air Command] to pick up CIA personnel for parties.”

Well that seals the deal doesn’t it? Not only is this some topnotch investigation here (hearsay of hearsay from unidentified people), but of course, because every black person must know every other black person in Omaha, how can this solid proof be impeached? Bleah.

Then there are the “what is this I don’t even” moments. In the midst of describing what she considered Satanic behavior, one witness, who later died and I have no desire to sully her name further, says:

There are certain things that are in common with the children’s stories when we talk about devil worship… There are things that come up in every single story, such as candles. They all talk about sex.”

Sigh… Candles? Really? Is that really a marker for Satanism? Even the vanilla scented ones they sell at Target?

There are unintentionally revealing moments in the same woman’s testimony.

We were real sure, we knew he had not been around these other children and heard anything, but we began to question ourselves, “Are we asking strange questions. Is there something odd about us which makes children come and dump these things on us?”

Yes, I wager there is something odd about the people who manage to get this sort of information out of children consistently, children who do not know each other, children who did not even have, according to some of her earlier words, the power of speech until they came to live with you. It is no accident that Satanic Panics happen in an epicenter, around people who get on a hobby horse and ride it until they get the information out of suggestible witnesses, mostly children, that feeds their particular conspiracy.

This same woman died in a car crash that “former FBI abuse specialist Ted Gunderson” deemed “a satanic contract suicide.”

The other driver didn’t die, but well could have; in satanic lore, a person who loses his life in such a contract murder/suicide will be reincarnated with more power, granted by Satan.

What lore, one wonders. A basic Google on “satanic contract suicide” leads me nowhere but to Gunderson and this book. And how did reincarnation get mixed in with Satanism anyway, seeing as how Satanism is a pretty concrete element of Christianity, where one gets one life and one life only, which is why offering it to a force of evil has such power? If you get multiple lives, you can be a wicked Satanist in this life, accept Jesus in the next and negate your evil acts, accept Him again in the next and be ahead of the game, right? How did we get to such bizarre ideas? Because, I assert, Gunderson made them up, that’s how, using his authority as former FBI to give his creations a patina of truth.

Additionally, it should not be a surprise that DeCamp refuses to name many of his sources.

The fact of the matter is that most people know by now that the world can be a terrible place. We are exposed to atrocity daily. We, in this Information Age, expect the worst and have no trouble believing it when it is presented to us believably. It is not too much to expect for there to be more proof than hearsay in these matters. If missing children are killed in Satanic rings, produce forensic evidence. How about a name? Anything more than someone’s word?

One of the most famous and proven cases of semi-organized child murder and pedophila is the case of Marc Dutroux, who acted with an accomplice, and sold child porn he produced to other pedophiles. There is a network of pedophiles who trade the horrible stuff online, possibly a global organization, though a loose one. But even in one of the most organized productions of such pornography, there was direct proof, the children who were killed could be identified and there was no greater cabal at work than possibly two men and those who purchased the grotesque filth they produced. (ETA: Through further research, I can no longer say that the Dutroux case is not as clear as I initially thought. More to come on this later if I have time, but the Dutroux case was not the best example to use here.)

The fact is, despite any good intentions DeCamp had in writing this book, he really did do more harm than good because with a lack of proof other than victim testimony, no abuse victim was believed. None of those kids saw justice, aside from the mild justice Bonacci received when Larry King failed to respond to a civil case and Bonacci was awarded a million dollars, which he will never receive. No one went to prison for child abuse, no one suffered as a result of this book, and if the goal was justice, DeCamp did not get it. And I wonder how many children were disbelieved after this mess? Pedophilia is a dire societal problem, with some statistics saying that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be molested. People who encourage whacked out theories hinder the cause of child abuse prevention.

However, it’s entertaining conspiracy theory to be sure. I say read it on that basis alone. But just be aware that there is no justice and little truth down the rabbit hole. And Ted Gunderson is there. That, more than any of the content in this book, should keep you up at night.

63 thoughts on “The Franklin Cover-Up by John W. DeCamp

  1. Hello sir,
    I just finished reading u’r article about the book The Franklin Cover-up and I have to say that I found it quite disturbing that a man who downgrades Hearsay and lack of Decamps sources will write an article that is nameless and faceless. John DeCamp did a lot more homework on this subject then I feel from this article then u have. I have more faith in what he is saying because here is a man that put his carreer on the line in order to unfold the Truth as he could find it. It just so happened that the truth in this case led to some very political names that can’t be pedophiles according to your article, they are just imagined names in a childs mind. What you neglect to say is that many of these witnesses are no longer children, and they were confirming the same stories time and time again from different kids involved in the same nights in question.
    You also forget to mention that ringleader Lawrence King did end up in prision over this case and weather you want to admit it or not, he was the fasting rising star in the Republican Party at the time. His carreer ended in Politics thanks to the heady word of John DeCamp.
    So please, whoever you are, I’ll call u the Nameless Coward, the next time u want to come on here and stick up for pedophiles and Political Scumbags, you will be called out on it. Nothing you wrote in your peace holds any truth outside of the fantasy of u’r reality. It’s idiots like u that keep sick Mother’s fers like these on the streets where they can potentially harm another child. You discuss me Nameless Coward, may your words be read back to you at the doorstep between realities, and may your words resonate in you light for three eternities before you are given a chance to join the civilized Prana co-joining all of this God-verse creation.
    Love will overcome evil, one day, love will find a way to destroy the hymes of evil that radiate out of nameless beings like u and become a reality for so many tunnel vision see’r’s of the Modern World. God Bless and find Love, Find Love.s.s.s

  2. Emerson, as I said in my review of this book, there is no sense trying to persuade True Believers in Satanic Panic to see my point of view. To a True Believer, there is never discussion – there is only argument, and I try not to make a habit of arguing online. I put a lot of thought into why I think this case was largely mishandled and pandered to an extraordinary delusion of crowds. I think my review shows clearly where I stand on issues of seeking justice for child molesters, even if it seems you have misinterpreted it. Good luck with your viewpoint.

    I will address two things: First, far from being a man or nameless coward, I am a woman and my name has been clearly associated with this site since it began in 2008. I am the only one who posts reviews here. I have my name clearly noted on my “contact” page. I’ve never been nameless.

    Second, this is a book review. It is not an analysis of the entire Franklin Scandal from beginning to end. The entire breadth of the Franklin Scandal is far beyond the scope of a book review site. But even so, were I to discuss every bit of factual information to the satisfaction of every person who knows a lot about this case, to do so would ruin this book for anyone who wanted to read it. I recommended that people buy this book, which means people can read it and if they disagree with my assessment, they can seek more information on the myriad sites that discuss every detail of this case.

    1. exactly, you “put a lot of thought into the article”, thought isnt evidence.
      This isnt a book review, its making claims against the claims in the book.
      This is an attempt to debunk the book. You even bring up Marc Dutroux, wtf has that got to do with reviewing this book?
      Your thoughts are irrelevant. If you have some evidence to bring to the table then please do so.
      Satanic panic played a big part in shitting on the testimonies of Paul Bonacci and Troy Boner. They never mentioned satanism, only sexual and physical abuse at the hands of very powerful people. You will be shitting on MK Ultra next. Wtf does Jeff Gannon have to do with this book?, this book was written in the 90’s, the Jeff Gannon/Johnny Gosch conspiracy theory didnt come up until 2005 in Pointblank Des Moines. Maybe you should leave busting conspiracy theories to people that dont just “think” about things, but use evidence instead.

      1. Hey, FU, Sorry your comment got moved to spam. I’m not sure why that happened – I’ll have Mr OTC look into it.

        I don’t want to seem like a hectoring school marm, but your accusations don’t really find much support in what I wrote and some of your questions are very clearly answered in my entry. If these were poorly articulated rhetorical questions on your part, please forgive me for taking them at face value. To reply:
        exactly, you “put a lot of thought into the article”, thought isnt evidence.
        I know, that’s one of the big problems I had with DeCamp’s investigation. 90% of this investigation relies on the thoughts and conclusions people reached, and when evidence was produced to back claims, like depending on unnamed “black people” to be the accepted source of information about another black guy through a third party recitation, one can safely say strange social interpretations – thoughts – were used as evidence. When thoughts are evidence, thoughts are often used to counter.

        This isnt a book review, its making claims against the claims in the book.
        Well, yeah, it’s non-fiction, supposedly. What did you expect? An analysis of DeCamp’s writing style? A look at the rich and varied canon of the Ritual Sexual abuse novel? Sometimes you see such literary analysis of non-fiction books, but if the book discusses the criminal or the political, especially if the case hinges almost exclusively on witness testimony, unless I fly to wherever it is Bonacci is held, win his trust, get him to tell me all the places babies were ground into meal, pay for forensic analysis of the soil and plant life in the place, and then publish those results – which no one in DeCamp’s book ever tried to do, by the way – all counter to this book can be is claim vs claim.

        You even bring up Marc Dutroux, wtf has that got to do with reviewing this book?
        This book makes an extraordinary claim that there was a vicious child sex ring run for the benefit of the Republican party. The Dutroux case indicates that there was a vast police and government conspiracy that protected and possibly benefited from a vicious child sex and porn ring. It is not uncommon to use similar cases, books, school of thoughts, studies to illustrate a commonality or grave difference between various works. People invoke In Cold Blood when dissecting ambitious true crime stories, but Capote and the Clutter family have nothing to do with the book. I do this with works of fiction all the time, mentioning other authors and approaches when discussing books, so actually this is something that shows up in my discussions/reviews. Dutroux was, what I thought at the time, an excellent example of a rush to judgement applying institutional collusion in covering up government-sanctioned child abuse and murder. In that regard, it makes perfect sense to look at one if looking at another But since then I realized I was the one who didn’t understand the depths of the Dutroux mess and it actually appears to be a case that involves government and powerful people suppressing evidence and avoiding justice. I mention this outright in the discussion. It’s right there, in parentheses at the end of the second to last paragraph.

        Your thoughts are irrelevant. If you have some evidence to bring to the table then please do so.
        Funny, that was what I thought when I saw DeCamp relying on The Deepbackgrounder as an ironclad source and that a district attorney once went into an adult book store in Iowa and that somehow means something in relation to this case.

        Satanic panic played a big part in shitting on the testimonies of Paul Bonacci and Troy Boner.
        With good reason. Bonacci’s experiences at the hands of those who needed to prove that the Republican’s organized systematic rape of children is by the book Satanic Panic.

        They never mentioned satanism, only sexual and physical abuse at the hands of very powerful people.
        I’ll take your word for that but whether they mentioned it or not is no longer relevant to the case DeCamp built. Instead, let’s ponder why Ted Gunderson was brought in and why did DeCamp run pages of his story about the woman with the initials of KS, a woman whose death Gunderson relates as a “satanic contract suicide.” That story was almost the entirety of chapter 15. Why is that, do you think? Why is the subtitle of this book “Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska”?

        Well, FU, it’s because Satanism played a part in this case and was derived from witness testimony (though I note Satanism is not mentioned in any form in the index of the second edition I am reading – interesting, that). Boner and Bonacci may not have mentioned Satanism outright, but if they didn’t then investigators and DeCamp filled in the blanks, implying that Satanists were involved in this case.

        From page 201, it is implied that Satanists may have played a role in an investigator’s plane crash:

        A satanic magazine was seen by a farmer at the site of Caradori’s plane crash in rural Illinois; the magazine disappeared without a trace…

        Caradori had told a state senator he had plans to visit a satanic book store while he was in Chicago.

        Also from page 201:

        The Douglas County grand jury acknowledged that the allegations in the Franklin case “necessitated our studying satanic and pedophile activity in Eastern Nebraska, particularly in the Omaha metropolitan area.”

        The testimony of two victim-witnesses who did not know each other, Loretta Smith and Paul Bonacci, placed King in the middle of such activity.

        Then the chapter goes on to discuss the “satanic contract suicide” of a true believer in Satanic Panic, going on to explain the long and varied history of Satanic abuse in Nebraska and the strange death of a whistleblower, linking her death in the minds of readers with the death of Caradori. That’s just one chapter. I have the paper book so I can’t count the number of times Satanism comes up with any ease but it’s a huge part of this case, and evidently Bonacci did give testimony that was Satanic enough in nature that it sparked an investigation into Satanism in Omaha. Straight from the book, FU.

        You will be shitting on MK Ultra next.
        Possibly but since there is demonstrable evidence that MKULTRA happened, you may be surprised at my discussion should I read about it soon. Got any book recommendations?

        Wtf does Jeff Gannon have to do with this book?, this book was written in the 90’s, the Jeff Gannon/Johnny Gosch conspiracy theory didnt come up until 2005 in Pointblank Des Moines.
        I stated outright in my “why do I consider this book odd” section before the discussion that Gannon comes up because I was looking into Jeff Gannon’s White House access and fell down a rabbit hole that sadly bottoms out at the abduction of Johnny Gosch and the terrible manipulation of Noreen Gosch. Jeff Gannon is in that rabbit hole since Noreen thinks he may be her son. Gannon only comes up in my discussion twice before the actual discussion begins as I explain how this whole topic came to my attention, and once again later, wishing that DeCamp would look into those claims against Gannon. I’m unsure why you’re upset at mentioning him because I never invoke him in the discussion of the content of the book. But notice how often he comes up in comments from people who believe the whole of the Franklin Scandal. As soon as Johnny Gosch was dragged into this – because Bonacci claims that he traveled with others into Iowa to kidnap him – Jeff Gannon’s involvement gets discussed when Johnny comes up.

        Maybe you should leave busting conspiracy theories to people that dont just “think” about things, but use evidence instead.
        Nah, I’ll keep writing exactly how I want and you keep commenting exactly how you want and I think the world will be just fine either way. This entry is difficult – the only topics that bring in such breadth of outside evidence are the JFK assassination and 9/11. This discussion took place early in my tenure writing about strange books and since I am oriented toward the experience of the book, I had no interest in reading pages of testimony, dozens of websites, and more. I wanted to look at the book and maybe some social events loosely related but the exacting level of research that has caused some people to have memorized entire chunks of related websites doesn’t mean much to casual readers.

        I vacillated back and forth between letting people veer off the book but now people can post what they want to encourage discussion but I can’t participate much beyond reacting to comments because this case isn’t at the forefront of my online experience. No conspiracy theory is. Outside of a couple of very limited examples, I never find conspiracy theory as absorbing as people who are the target audience of books like DeCamp’s. I read something, I begin to read something else that interests me, followed by something else wholly unrelated that also interests me, and being that way makes it hard to go back and go over all the various elements that people interested in the Franklin case have at their fingertips because I am no longer deeply interested by the time you guys come around. This entry is almost seven years old by now but many who comment show up believing it got posted yesterday and needs to be handled with immediacy with the depth only a true believer can manage.

        I may not have handled it correctly initially but as of now people can discuss elements outside the purview of the book. Though to be frank, the actual book shot down some of your criticisms of my analysis. I can see why people may want to deviate from the DeCamp’s actual text.

        Thanks for the comment and should you or any other believer find any concrete evidence that links a child in the ring with an actual abducted child, forensics evidence that shows the presence of bone meal, medical exams showing actual abuse and scars, or even where on earth Paul Bonacci came from, I’ll be happy to amend this entry. Be well.

      2. Hi, Mr. OTC here.

        FWIW when one leaves a comment wherein the name or email address contains a well-known profanity, our anti-spam system is likely to flag it as a junk comment, in which case it is held in moderation until someone can review it.

        In FU’s case, both the name and the (obviously fake) email address contained profanity, so it was almost 100% likely to end up in moderation.

        1. Ahh… Okay. Makes sense. And now I wonder if I need to go check the spam folder and see what else may have landed in there. I only caught FU’s comment because I happened to be working when he or she left it. Thanks for looking into it!

    2. @anitadalton Excellent! You spelled it out eloquently with so much common sense. You’re not going to change those type of minds, ever. I thought everyone in this country was innocent until proven guilty but that’s never how it is. Even after going through the system and being deemed as a ‘carefully crafted hoax’ (which the verbiage is just silly), people will believe whatever they want regardless of the truth or “truth” but I agree with you. Very glad I happened to stumble upon this, thank you 🙏

  3. I think its funny this article tries to poke holes in a compendium of evidence by saying there is missing evidence here and there, when its seems to be that’s the whole point of the book…those in control of the system, with immeasurable access, have tampered with the system itself.

    1. Tony, thanks for reading.

      One of the points of the book is that DeCamp insists children were molested, raped, kidnapped and murdered by people in power. The book produces weak evidence to prove that assertion. Moreover, if any of the eyewitness testimony in the book was used to take investigators to the scenes of where bones were ground to meal, where there were sex parties, then forensic evidence could have been gathered. None was gathered so it’s not like that evidence got suppressed – it never existed. No attempt outside Johnny Gosch was made to link children eye witnesses saw being molested with children who were missing or killed. All we have are a bunch of allegations by fragile witnesses or witnesses with an agenda (the fact that a DNA test was performed that proved Alisha Owen was lying about the paternity of her child, that the sheriff did not rape her into a pregnancy, was left out of the book entirely) and no attempt to perform routine investigations on the parts of even these weak allegations that could prove something tangible happened.

      The evidence DeCamp gives does not lead me to believe the bulk of what he said happened, and therefore his assertion of a cover-up means little to me when I don’t think “those in control of the system, with immeasurable access” had much to tamper with in the first place.

      1. I thought it was funny that the Republicans put 3 inverted pentagrams on their party emblem… You’d think actual Christians would be behooved to avoid upside down pentagrams.

        Anyways, are you trying to say that the proposed deaths and death threats were in fact fallacious claims? 1 death threat over this is enough to put them all to the full force of the legal system.

        Shit, at the very least, Larry King deserved a life sentence just for the embezzlement. The penalty for the embezzlement in and of its self should have you wondering what is wrong with the system and those who run it.

        1. So why do you think the more religious members of the Republican party tolerate obvious Satanic imagery, if that’s what it is? Though I tend to think that even the most knuckle-dragging, bottom of the barrel fundamentalist would, you know, abandon the GOP if they were actively advertising Satanism. People aren’t that dumb and if they are and the GOP is really Satanic, then I guess it all works out in the end.

          I’m sorry, Bongstar420, but I’m unsure which death threats you are talking about. It’s been a while since I read this book or thought about the Franklin Scandal in depth. My apologies. As for the deaths, I have no proof other than psychologically unstable witnesses who cannot produce a single body, lead anyone to a location where a person died and therefore allow forensics testing or even supply the tapes they claim exist of some of the murders. No missing children have been linked to the Bonacci confessions, no children in that area came up missing during the time this was supposedly happening (that I could find – if anyone has better research, I really am all ears), and as of now, there seems to be no proof anyone ever died because of a child porn and sex ring run for the benefit of the GOP.

          Well yeah, King should definitely have served a life sentence but in that regard, every white collar criminal should serve time equivalent for the financial mayhem they wreak. None of us need to wonder what is wrong with the system – we already know. A kid with a sufficient amount of pot will do more time than Jeffrey Skilling and that’s because our judicial system in this country is, at times, a joke. King’s ten years was hardly enough for committing what was essentially financial treason. In a sense, however, there is a small comfort in King’s sentence – when it comes to financial crimes on a federal level, blacks and whites get the same preferential treatment. And yes, that last sentence was sarcasm.

  4. This particular book review is absolutely one of the best I’ve ever read. It’s thorough, excellently written and truly insightful. Nicely done!

    I stumbled across the topic of the Franklin Scandal on a YouTube video produced by Yorkshire TV titled, Conspiracy of Silence. It was a deeply disturbing film, to say the least. Even if only a tiny fraction of this story is true, it speaks to the corruption and evil that can be found in the hearts of some people. As a species, we’re faced with the fact that there are among us, utter human defects – anomalies of the worst sort. And sadly, they are often highly intelligent; able to cover their tracks with unimaginable success.

    While there may indeed be many holes in this particular conspiracy theory, one thing holds true: Money equals power. And when mixed with politics, sex and people in high places, it becomes a rancid roux that can poison communities, cities, states and our nation as a whole. And once the downward spiral of corruption begins, it’s conceivable that some pretty unthinkable things can happen. Could child sex slaves be ushered through the doors of the White House to service those in power? Could photos and videos exist of such a thing? Could that evidence find its way into more sinister hands that then use the evidence for political gain?

    What this story conjures in me is this: the realization that the world must be a complicated place at those upper levels of existence. People like me, (your work-a-day Jane living the quiet, middle-income life), we don’t know JACK about what happens in places where money flows like rivers and people bow at your feet to fill your every whim. Two cliches come to mind: The love of money is the root of all evil AND Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

    Thanks for the excellent read! Truly a great review!

    1. Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Tracy.

      Could child sex slaves be ushered through the doors of the White House to service those in power? Could photos and videos exist of such a thing? Could that evidence find its way into more sinister hands that then use the evidence for political gain?

      These are obviously rhetorical questions but I’m going to answer them anyway. Yes, it is possible that child sex slaves are servicing the White House, that video exists, and that video could be used for further sinister goals. But before one assigns those specific acts to specific people, one needs proof. And at no point does DeCamp have needed proof. It’s all well and good to speculate but this was not speculation. Lives were ruined on both sides because some men took an extreme story offered by mentally disturbed kids and turned those stories into absolute truths.

      In the process of accusing Larry King of providing child rape victims to the Bush administration, DeCamp smeared the names of innocent people – because mark my words, Hunter S. Thompson, in the ascent of his writing career, following political campaigns and with books on the best seller list, did not have the time or the inclination to tape the necrophilic rape of a child. He hated corruption and the abuse that went with political corruption and had he any access to such information, he would have revealed it to bring down everyone involved. His outright hatred of the Nixon administration and loathing for Nixon in particular shows a man who would reveal such corruption in a heartbeat. And yet DeCamp smeared his name without hesitation based on the implausible story (anyone raped with a cattle prod would not walk away from the experience) of a disturbed young man and he did it because it added to the salaciousness of his story, not because it proved a damn thing.

      The whole story has no merit. Alisha Owen’s claims that she gave birth the a sheriff’s baby after being used as his concubine at sex parties was disproved with DNA evidence. Poor Paul Bonacci was used by DeCamp and those like him. And as a result, resources were wasted, and eyes were averted from the real problems we do have in power.

      Because I agree that power corrupts. But salacious stories that involve Ted Gunderson and tales of ground up bones mean that we are not focusing on the real corruption. For example, George H. W. Bush, a former head of the CIA and a man whose long political career had many scandals, was a key player in the S&L meltdown in the USA in the late 80s, manipulating the situation so one of his sons would not see prison time. That was a scandal, but who remembers it now? Bush the Elder also played a key role via his position in the CIA in the Iran-Contra scandal, and THAT should have been what this book was about because the King scandal from all appearances was a part of the scandal. Barely registers in the midst of the incredible claims of child victims.

      And that is why I think we need to think hard before we assign any rhetorical value to exposes like this. We have incredible proof of wrong-doing that we need to focus on so why waste our time on vulgar exposes that prove nothing, smear the names of the innocent, harm the minds of children and throw up such a furor based on no proof that distract people from real child abuse claims? So we can take this as a musing about the potential for people in power to do dreadful things but since we have actual proof of people doing horrible things, it seems like a diversion from the things we really know happened. That’s probably a distillation of my impatience with so much of conspiracy theory – it distracts us from real harm.

      So that’s my perspective, for what it’s worth.

      I really appreciated this comment, and hope you come back – I’ll have some more real conspiracy theory to discuss again in the near future that ties into the McMartin abuse case in California and I think your opinion would add to the discussion.

      1. Excellent points on all counts! And I can’t wait for your next post.

        I remember very well the McMartin Case. It was 1983. I was newly married and quite naive at the age of 21. It was the McMartin case alone that drove my decision to never to use a daycare.

        Even after the McMartin family was cleared and all charges proved false, I remained unwilling to consider a daycare facility. I practically demanded blood samples from every babysitter we ever used! This all stemmed from that case.

        It was a horrifying scenario all around – I can’t wait to read your review. What book are you reading?

        1. I’m currently reading Deadfall Hotel by Steve Rasnic Tem, which is a creepy but sweet and charming book about a widower and his daughter running a very frightening hotel.

          I am dozens of books behind in my discussions. But the book I think you may be interested in Reflections in the Night by writer who calls herself Mauri. To me the book shows how clearly therapists do not understand how “basic” abuse can absolutely destroy a person, and an artifact of therapists whose well-intentioned approaches caused so much more damage than they could ever have imagined.

          I hope to get to this book soonish.

          I have no children and never will have any but if I had been able to have children, I would not have sent them to day care. I was abused by a caregiver’s husband in a home day care setting, and became absolutely frenzied in a Children’s World franchise run by some unpleasant women. My husband was not abused, but recalls day care as being boring, chaotic, he frequently missed meals because of the chaos, he was constantly sick and I think he got lice.

          I am sure there are perfectly lovely, nurturing, wonderful day care centers, but I never experienced one. Back when we were having the “what if” talks, we were adamant that I would have been a stay at home mom. Given what we both experienced, we didn’t even need the horror of a McMartin situation – one sick old man, institutionalized neglect, and nasty conditions were enough for us.

  5. did you ever think that maybe DeCamp was part of the cover up? After all, he was an officer (along with Bob Kerrey, John Kerrey, Michael Aquino, Oliver North……..) in the Phoenix Program, a program of complete terror and atrocity unleashed on the civilian population of Southeast Asia. He also made a career out of unsuccessfully investigating Bob Kerrey, as well as unsuccessfully defending Alisha Owen. DeCamp and Kerrey’s commanding officer in the Phoenix program was none other than William Colby, who also unsuccessfully investigated the blatant murder of Gary Caradori and shortly afterwards ended up floating in a river.

    As far as Hunter S Thompson, DeCamp’s statements were refuted by Nick Bryant in his more recent book entitled “Franklin”. Unfortunately, as a lifelong Omahan with a keen interest in this case, I have caught Bryant in a few falsehoods as well. Quite frankly, more than a few people were making allegations about HST watching snuff films at Woody Creek. He also had been making curious comments about child abduction. It seems that he was also involved in some sort of sexual assault case, and won using the same legal team as the parents of JonBenet Ramsey. IF, and I do say IF, HST was actually murdered, I’m willing to bet it had a lot more to do with snuff films than 9/11………..

    Anyways, I can assure you that Franklin is a lot more than 1/8 real. The problem is that the 3 books about it have all been written by questionable “investigators”, 2 of which were connected directly with the CIA and the FBI. (Gunderson wrote a book as well). Essentially, it was about Iran/Contra drug and weapons trafficking, big time money laundering, and MKULTRA/organized occult activities. (Michael Aquino!!!) You obviously do not know Omaha (or Council Bluffs) and are a bit naive in your assumptions that “they” would surely investigate these things (i.e. Wadman paternity, evidence of cremated bodies, etc……). You are a good writer, however, and you did read the book. If you want to really understand this, get a copy of “Programmed to Kill” by Dave McGowan. You can purchase it in pdf form for like $6 or read it for free at scribd. I can’t recommend it enough!
    If you want a better understanding of Omaha, check this out: it’s a timeline of events during a 4 month period in 1983 which I compiled from the Omaha World Herald.


    You also need to dig a little deeper into the Dutroux case (if you have the stomach for it) and you will see there was a lot more than 2 people involved!

    1. Hey Dave! Thanks for the excellent comments.

      I had never considered DeCamp was a part of the coverup because I don’t think much of it happened. My late step-father-in-law was a member of the Phoenix Program and while the Vietnam war was a moral and literal clusterfuck, my experiences with the men who were a part of the Phoenix Program is so radically different that I don’t immediately associate membership with being the sort of man who would cover up the Satanic rape and murder of children.

      I don’t get the fear about Michael Aquino. He developed a dopey cult that is all about the “left hand path” but in order to believe anything truly wicked about him, I would have to believe that strange little man can manipulate the physical world via black magic. Sans black magic the Temple of Set, to a rationalist like me, is just Ayn Rand with lots of ceremonial candles and chanting.

      So yeah, since I don’t think the bulk of what was described in the book happened, I never considered that DeCamp was a part of a coverup, and his presence in a program that involved my father-in-law, a man whose main personality traits involved a love of collegiate basketball and playing board games with his daughters, and Michael Aquino, doesn’t really ring any bells for me. DeCamp unsuccessfully defended Alisha Owen because she was lying – at the very least paternity results showed the Sheriff was not the father of the baby she claimed was his. And I don’t know that Gary Caradori was murdered. I’ve read plenty about his death but for one to believe his plane crash was really a murder, one has to believe that his death served a greater coverup. Since I don’t believe there was a coverup, Caradori’s death could not serve a coverup.

      Ugh! I wasn’t going to discuss HST but if you can provide the names of anyone who can prove he was in possession of snuff films, made snuff films or made child porn other than Bonacci and that girl who claims he threw her out of his house because she wouldn’t watch a snuff film, I’ll research the hell out them. The latter especially does not pass the sniff test for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being that when one is in possession of the Conspiracy Theory Holy Grail – a genuine snuff film – one does not foist it upon those who do not want to see it. Moreover, I can think of many films that are categorized as snuff films – Cannibal Holocaust, Cannibal Ferox, Snuff – and they were all mainstream films that were released in theaters that showed nary a human death (may Deodato be confronted in the afterlife by angry turtles and baby pigs). So that throwaway line about forcing her to leave because she wouldn’t watch a snuff film, if it is true, could have a decidedly non-killing-people-for-film meaning. But if you have actual people who can verify that HST was at a film shoot AND identified him in specific detail AND can give any sort of details that indicate it wasn’t a film like Cannibal Holocaust, I’m more than willing to have a read. Seriously. I am.

      And by the way, the Ramseys did not kill their daughter. Had Boulder police not mismanaged the crime scene from the very start, we would have had a far different outcome. And the DNA found on her body didn’t match anyone in the family. So a correlation between the Ramsey’s lawyers and HST means nothing. Man, you have done some hard work, I cannot deny it, but I am a scholar of the JBR case, and because of the pisspoor work done by Boulder PD, we will never know who did it but we can tell who didn’t do it.

      So indulge me here: Why can’t you or anyone else go and get samples from the areas where bodies were burned and churned? Film it, have a private investigator and witnesses verify things, and get the remains analyzed. Hell, have a Kickstarter wherein you can group-source the funding and obtain that bit of evidence that will for once and all show a definitive link between human bodies and the stories of the survivors? If you do it, I will flog as much money toward it as I can. And there has to be hundreds of people like me who appreciate conspiracy theory or believe in the details of the Franklin case that I would not be alone. Something to think about.

      I am assuming you are Dave McGowan, and hell yes, I have ordered a hard copy of Programmed to Kill. I will be sure to discuss it here so when it happens, please come respond. I have no doubt, based on this comment, that it will be an excellent read.

      And even though I clearly don’t agree with certain premises, comments like this thrill me! I love conspiracy theory or actual conspiracies and though I am hard to convince, I am also very interested regardless and love it when people who are clearly very well-informed challenge me and speak up what they know. I’ll be sure to check out the Gonzo’s Revenge site soon – I suspect it will be excellent to read on those long nights when insomnia has me.

      Oh, and I have been reading some about the Dutroux case. Some people who reacted strongly to my discussion of the Monster of Florence case led me down that rabbit hole and while I am not convinced yet, I am also still reading. So we’ll see.

  6. P.S. whether HST was financially successful or not, he admittedly was pretty much committing multiple felonies at any given time. Money doesn’t do you much good if you’re in jail, and blackmail is one possible reason why he could get sucked into such activity. Also, he obviously had connections to the black market, wrote about purchasing human organs from Satanists, and ran in the same circles as Charles Manson.

    Furthermore, his position as a manager at a porn theatre in 1965 San Francisco put him smack dab in an underworld of organized crime, powerful Satanists (Anton Lavey, L Ron Hubbard, Michael Aquino! to name a few), the CIA, drugs, prostitution, money laundering (many instances of mob money laundered through pornography – most notably the highly inflated box office receipts for the movie “Deep Throat”), and much much more.

    Going farther back, he also was in the Air Force and conceivably could have been a CIA “Mockingbird” journalist all along. I’m not saying he was, just throwing the circumstantial possibility out there. If nothing else, the man was very well connected, and well connected with people you would think would shy away from an admitted multiple and habitual felon.

    Just sayin

    1. Just about anyone who is engaged in drugs the way HST was is engaged in multiple felonies at any one time. Especially if one is carrying heroic quantities of drugs across state lines and engaged in abuse of multiple drugs. And it’s hard to see how a man whose life was a public wallow could be blackmailed for the felonies he committed in the course of using drugs. I don’t do well with innuendo so if you have specific examples of how HST was blackmailed or did things to avoid jail time, I am willing to consider them or do research.

      Moved in Manson’s circles? So did the Beach Boys and Neil Young. So did Terry Melcher, and by transitive property, Candice Bergen. Manson was a grifter – his circles ran large.

      Okay, here’s where I really disagree with you because by the time the Mitchell Brothers had descended into truly criminal behaviors, HST was long gone. He was there in the 60s when drugs and porn were the worst the Mitchell Brothers were engaged in. And I never read anything about the Mitchell Brothers being involved with the Mafia but I will admit that most of what I know comes from reading about the true crime case surrounding them.

      Wait. How is L. Ron Hubbard a Satanist? And how come you associate Satanists with power. I don’t know any with power. Anton LaVey had little, Aquino less, and current Satanists all work wage slave jobs. Not to disrespect a way of thinking I find bizarre (as an atheist, Satanism makes less sense to me than Christianity, but never mind), but it seems that Glenn Danzig is the most powerful Satanist around and he denies being a Satanist and has memes made about him taking care of his cats. I just don’t see the menace of Satanists.

      I don’t know enough about Operation Mockingbird to comment about it intelligently. I’ll read about it and see how it fits into all of this.

      Again, very interesting comment. I’ve been given much to read and think about. Hope you come back and comment some more, Dave.

      1. this response is sprawling, as many topics were touched on in the blog post and in the comment. but this is in response to the person know here as “anita dalton.”

        hmmm, it was revealed years ago that HST fabricated his tales of drug use. since this should be known by a “researcher,” i wonder what are your motives. oh wait, houdini’s photo is where lee harvey oswald’s should be! that pretty much says it all; another troll with entirely too much time on her hands (at least). i gather oswald was the lone gunman, after all (hoo boy, THAT, is a good one!).

        but, i’ll proceed with what’s here: anton lavey = powerless. hmmm, the satanic bible is one of the best-selling books in modern history, that’s pretty damn powerful. l. ron, NOT a satanist?!?! REALLY? the man called aleister crowley, “my dear friend.” hubbard purported to be crowley’s main protege! and yet. you are correct, but completely accidentally, as crowley was not a “satanist” and was, and continues to be fodder for those who believe the hype (and pleeeze don’t attempt to say this is what you meant about hubbard and satanism). by the way, you need to do a little work and find out what “church” aquino led at the presidio and then read his military-related works to understand why he was able to be an overt satanist (here’s a hint: psychological warfare).

        onto projects phoenix, monarch, and whatever govt./pop-culture project. your step smama’s brodaddy’s cousin’s whatever was involved project phoenix: sure. let’s not go there. if i had a $1 for every person who made such claims i’d have an extra 3 grand in my pocket right now.

        you, apparently know little of the projects. if you did you’d know they are on-going and that the release of information about them into the public is no more than limited hangout crumbs spewed for fools to hang their hat on. additionally, it is painfully apparent that you know nothing at all of beltway sub-culture, of which intel, former intel, and intel-related folk make up a good chunk of the populace. you’ve also obviously, never driven the back road and side highway of virginia, w. va. and maryland, or you’d know that these areas are littered with agency outposts, where, should you bother to engage yourself in a few months of deep reading about these subjects after those travels, you will find the focal points for some of the human experimentation performed by the boys from brazil, errr, the men who stare at more than goats and see more than greys in the shadows…

        as far as franklin/johnny gosch/gannon, et al. specifically, i gather the secret service written records of gannon’s late night white house visits are to be totally dismissed as — what? please inform us of gannon’s post-midnight journalism forays that landed him in the white house; inquiring minds want to know.

        and i gather you feel the documented british isle and euro pedo rings are separate from those documented in the u.s.?! really?! are you THAT naive, or is it just part of your job description to pooh-pooh such connections.

        one last thing: ask your whatever-in-law what the connection is between offut, wright-patterson, cheyenne, and pease. if he can’t answer that (or if you can’t),the relative-in-law you speak of and/or you know not a damn thing about Project Phoenix.

        1. DK, even though the purpose of this comment was to demean me and to show off your own “learnings” with nary a source to back up your assertions, I’m going to let it stand and will let you comment more just to see if you have the self-control to get yourself in check and discuss topics in a polite manner. I challenge you to think just a little bit before you post again because you sound like a complete lunatic as you unperson and engage in the sort of speculative tactics that makes it clear to me exactly how it is I came to your attention.

          As I have stated a million times, this is a book review site. Keep your comments to the book review. It’s all over this entry and I deviated from this course because Dave Holland is a polite guy interested in the intricacies of extraordinary theories but for arrogant insulters like you? Stay on topic. When I discuss the Franklin Scandal on my other site, which permits such meandering, go for it. There, when it is topical, you can write down every bit of knowledge you’ve ever picked up about GOP Satanists and L. Ron Hubbard and Mkultra and everything else tangentially related to the case. Here? Please don’t.

          1) Do not engage in unpersoning here again. Do not ever again put my names in quotes on one of my own sites. What is it with you guys? Are you really so paranoid that anyone who does not see things as you do must automatically be a plant or a troll sent specifically to undermine you, because, you know, you are just that important as you propagate tinfoil crockpottery? Not kidding. Do it again and you’re banned.

          2) Troll? Sir, you and your ilk keep using that word and I do not think you know what it means. Maintaining an odd book site for almost six years, permitting anyone of any stripe to comment, is not trolling. Trolling is when you come into someone else’s realm, like my sites, and act like a fool by engaging in insulting, lying, unpersoning and scurrilous accusations. Trolling is epitomized by your comment. I don’t like trolls and if you can’t pull yourself together, you will be banned as a troll. I’ve had some terminal cases post here – my analysis of 2083 brought them out in droves. But as of now, no one is banned over here. Almost six years and no one has been as offensive as you. You may want a cookie for this astonishing feat but this is not behavior I intend to reward. Pull yourself together.

          3) Dude, your issues with Houdini’s head makes you look weird. Why do you care how I decide to illustrate my other site? And since you evidently know everything there is to know, how come you don’t know that isn’t Oswald’s body. It’s Kerry Thornley’s body. Funny you didn’t know that… Because if you had known Oswald’s head had been put on Thornley’s body, perhaps the meta of replacing Oswald’s head with Houdini’s head would have been funnier. Oh well, you can’t know everything, DK.

          4) Are you talking about the Silberman letter? The one wherein HST says he fabricated a lot of the drug use in a specific book? Because that doesn’t mean he fabricated all his drug use. It means he fabricated elements of it in a book. The man used drugs and drank heavily. People still alive have witnessed it. He jadedly curated a “gonzo” image, for sure, but unless you can cite a single reference that proves the man actually fabricated all of his drug use, perhaps you shouldn’t mock my research capabilities.

          5) Having a best-selling book makes you powerful? Do you fear Mitch Albom? How about Elie Wiesel? He’s sold way more books than LaVey. Rhonda Byrne? You fear her secret? Harper Lee? Helen Fielding? Ooo, I can only imagine the fear you have for Stephenie Meyer. All of those writers have sold far more books than LaVey, so if having a best-selling novel, of all time even, means one is powerful, you best get into the bomb shelter now because I hear J.K. Rowling is thinking of writing another Harry Potter book.

          6) I know plenty about Aquino and the Temple of Set. What is it that you think I don’t know? The Temple of Set is yet another over-hyped left hand path mini cult that only had any cultural relevance because Satanic Panic espousers were so afraid of that wormy little guy. And Crowley, as esoteric his rebellion is represented by the OTO and modern Thelemites, very much had Satanic leanings. If you read The Works of Aleister Crowley and the biography Perduabo, you will find it very hard to maintain that Crowley did not at least dabble in Satanism. Note I source cited why I believe what I do. Feel free to follow my lead.

          In the same vein as my parenthetical aside, when Dave above mentioned L. Ron Hubbard and Satanism, that was wholly new to me. There’s no shame in being ignorant of some fact and those who think there is are generally the most deficient of them all. But because Dave isn’t a self-impressed insulter of book bloggers, he shared information, I looked it up, and now I have a stack of books to read, with two Jack Parsons bios in the stack. I don’t like people who behave as if they know it all yet cannot be arsed to explain themselves and I don’t tolerate their arrogance on my sites.

          7) If you can’t be arsed to go there, then don’t bring it up. Seriously, my blog is not the place for you to flex your “more knowledgeable than thou” muscles. You have your own sites for that. Either share what you know or go away.

          8) Explain how you know that the projects are ongoing and that we know nothing about them because information is slow coming or drop it. Prove your assertions with information others can read or go away. You’re the one taking issue with a side discussion I am having in comments with someone else and it it’s that important, then it’s important enough to source cite.

          9) Jeff Gannon was mentioned in this book discussion because Noreen Gosch believes her son may be Jeff Gannon, having been stolen away into the night and used as a sex slave. By all accounts, Gannon was a gay porn star and escort and it’s pretty clear even without Secret Service records that his access to the Bush presidency as a “reporter” came via fudged press credentials. Not sure why you are taking me to task on this one – I agree that Gannon’s access to the White House was at best very weird. I just don’t think he’s Johnny Gosch and I think those who torment Noreen with this sort of detail are beneath contempt. Clear now?

          10) I had read two books about the Dutroux case that did not elaborate on some of the information that I have since discovered. Had you even read my article you would see I edited it to show that the Dutroux case was likely far more complex and conspiratorial than I originally believed.

          11) My job? What job may that be? Seriously. Spell it out, DK! See, if you had any of the research skills you so tout you would already know all you could possibly want to know about me. The books I read, the names of my cats, the name of my autoimmune disorder, how many stories my house has, when I was married, where I went to high school, and even the color of the dress I wore to junior prom. But alas, the simple truth is just so uninteresting. You have to twist and turn and obfuscate because you need to discredit me, for whatever reason. You drop scurrilous accusations that I have a job to disagree with DeCamp and his acolytes and assorted True Believers and those accusations are based on nothing more than the buzzing beehive in your brain, and that’s a generous assessment. In short, you’re either lazy and disordered in your thinking, or you are deliberately lying because you, yourself, have some stake in the dissemination of a specific narrative, be it money, ego, or sheer insanity. Only you know, but if you comment here again and continue in this vein, I will ban you.

          12) Unfortunately my father-in-law died in 2010. He was a fine man who worked hard for his country yet never hesitated to criticize it when it went wrong. He didn’t dwell in the realm of conspiracy theory because he knew the real damages our government did and didn’t have to create fairy tales to scare others. He also was of sound mind so the tinfoil crackpottery that you espouse would have made his eyes glaze, the way they do when some lunatic is on a traffic island screaming about the end of days and you’re just waiting for the light to change so you can drive away. And he knew far more about the Phoenix Project than you ever will unless, like him, you were a part of the project, and if you were, I can’t imagine why you are behaving this way online. My f-i-l was a true patriot and if you disparage him again, I’ll just ban you.

          Because surely you have better things to do, my fellow Austinite, than to make up things about me in my own comment section and to insinuate you know more without even trying to prove your case. Again, I encourage you to pull yourself together and never behave this way again. It really does reflect poorly on you and given that you yourself are a writer with your own places to grandstand online, it’s all the more bizarre you decided to drop in and show your ass this way.

          But if you return and speak to me with respect and without any of this “speculation” and unpersoning, I’d be only too happy to continue a discussion with you. Hope you come around to my way of thinking in that regard.

          Good talking to you, DK.

        2. Mr. Oddbooks here.

          DK, are you seriously calling my stepfather, a man you know nothing about, a liar? A man who earned the Bronze Star and was wounded several times in the service of his country? A man who was proud of his lifetime of service even when he had reservations about what his country asked him to do (i.e. the Phoenix Program)?

          Mrs. Oddbooks was entirely too nice to you. I want you to crawl back into whatever diseased pustule from whence you came. You’re banned.

          (And I’m banning you at the other site too.)

          1. I deeply regret ever mentioning Ray on this site but at the time I had no idea the depths to which these sorts of True Believers will sink in order to prove whatever point the voices in their heads say is the truth. Since launching HRev, I’ve been insulted, unpersoned, called a liar, cursed at, accused of being a government agent and so many other lunatic accusations that I’m becoming inured to them. As soon as DK insulted Ray I should have banned him. I think I’ve just been so blunted to their tactics that my first and natural response to take offense has been buried under layers of, “Yeah, whatever, yet another scurrilous accusation from yet another demented True Believer.” I am sorry.

            Increasingly I won’t be able to run this site or HRev with an eye to kindness, or at least with an eye to kindness to these sorts of commenters.

  7. No, I’m not Dave McGowan, lol. The man is a highly gifted researcher and pretty decent writer, and I have long been a fan of his work.

    Unfortunately, I have recently taken a new job which is demanding a lot of my time, so I can’t really respond at the moment. I will throw out a few tidbits, however, and come back when I have more time.

    As far as I’m aware, a paternity test was never taken in the Owen/Wadman case. I do know that Owen served some 15 years for claiming that Wadman raped her. Wadman (a corrupt figure with a bluster that made him highly unpopular among the better citizens of Omaha) was essentially run out of town due to the scandal (he was also linked to gang leaders brought in from LA and shady circumstances involving Boys Town. It would appear that Mr. Wadman was instrumental in setting up and arming the new gang/crack distribution hierarchy in North Omaha – if this is truly what it seems then it is not really a stretch to think that weapons and drugs were being shuffled through Offutt Air Force Base as part of the Iran Contra fiasco, which maybe had a lot more to do with regimenting the cocaine routes through central America to help fund CIA black ops and make some private major players – I’m not going to say “like Warren Buffet” although he lives here too – a lot of money – of course now that we’ve gone this far down the road (a road which can be paved with a lot of supporting evidence – in case you think I’ve gone off the conspiracy deep end) then there is no problem with the idea that major corporate entities like Enron, First National Bank, Kiewit and Sons, Union Pacific, AT&T, The Omaha World Herald, Mutual of Omaha, and others were involved in heavy duty money laundering of which the Franklin Credit Union was but one broken cog in a giant clock (again, there is a lot of provocative information to support this claim))…………..I lost my train of thought, apparently

    ………..Wadman then went to Aurora, Illinois which placed him at the scene of the Caradori murder and then went to Georgia where he was again run out of town for waging a battle with a very highly respected occult crime investigator in the department. (Did I mention Wadman was responsible for the recall of an Omaha mayor (who was temporarily replaced by the man who lived across the street from me, Bernie Simon, who held office for a few months before dying of a rapid cancer onset)?)

    As far as Manson, yes he was connected with Neil Young, Terry Melcher, The Beach Boys, et al…………..yes he was indeed…… (he also did some time at Boys Town in Omaha which was built largely by donations from the Brandeis family. If you recall the story of Alan Baer from DeCamp’s book, he was the nephew of E John Brandeis – millionaire playboy, Intelligence operative, and the man who admittedly ran Omaha from 1943 until 1973 (give or take, I don’t have my notes handy, lol). E John quite literally and openly RAN Omaha during that time and during his monthly visits to Omaha gave orders to the heads of all those corporations I mentioned above (AT&T, Union Pacific, etc….). He was, on a side note, successfully divorced once on grounds of “excessive cruelty”. E John lived on the Brandeis Movie Ranch north of LA (a set once used by Gene Autry and the Lone Ranger) which was DIRECTLY across the road from the Spahn Movie Ranch where both the Manson Family and the man who ran Omaha lived as immediate neighbors during that wonderful summer of 1969.

    While we are talking about odd books, I would highly recommend Maury Terry’s “The Ultimate Evil”. This was the book that first woke me up to what is going on and led me to Dave McGowan.

    What if the reason HST was murdered was because it was only a matter of time before he did leave evidence or that he really was watching snuff films with people he shouldn’t have been………..

    After you read Programmed to Kill, if you enjoy it (as enjoyable as serial murder can be, anyways), I would highly recommend you go to McGowan’s site: “Center for an Informed America” and read the 20 or so chapters he’s written about Laurel Canyon. Truly an Odd Read, and one I’m sure a mind like yours will very much enjoy! I will provide links at the bottom.

    L Ron Hubbard was very closely connected to Aleister Crowley – for starters – I’ll come back to this next time………….

    You are taking Aquino a bit lightly – the man’s entire career is classified except for his resume which mentions NASA, psyops, special forces, and a wonderful thesis about the necessities of using “mind war” techniques on American citizens

    Anton Lavey was a deliberate showboat – an intentional diversion – a clown

    I’m not saying I believe in Satan, only that some elite and powerful people do indeed seem to – and they are not, for obvious reasons, open about it

    “Autumn is always a time of Fear and Greed and Hoarding for the winter coming on. Debt collectors are active on old people and fleece the weak and helpless. They want to lay in enough cash to weather the known horrors of January and February. There is always a rash of kidnapping and abductions of schoolchildren in the football months. Preteens of both sexes are traditionally seized and grabbed off the streets by gangs of organized perverts who traditionally give them as Christmas gifts to each other to be personal sex slaves and playthings.

    Most of these things are obviously Wrong and Evil and Ugly — but at least they are Traditional. They will happen. Your driveway will ice over, your furnace will blow up, and you will be rammed in traffic by an uninsured driver in a stolen car.

    But what the hell? That’s why we have Insurance, eh? And the Inevitability of these nightmares is what makes them so reassuring. Life will go on, for good or ill. But some things are forever, right? The structure may be a little Crooked, but the foundations are still strong and unshakable.”

    an odd quote by Thompson near the end of his life

    this is chapter one (Laurel Canyon) – the rest of the chapters can be found here:

    And he recommends this in regards to Manson:

    I’ll come back when I have more time – keep up the great book reviews!

  8. p.s – near the end of “programmed to Kill” there is a nice little chapter about the Ramsey case. I have been able to find other sources which support his writing. I’ll let McGowan explain it to you in his book as I am merely an amateur………….

    1. Argh, I forgot to address this when I finished the book, Dave! I will get on that soon, because I think McGowen, like much of the other sections of this book, was on the right path and then took a left turn down the wrong road. It beggars belief that JBR was a sacrifice to Satan, that she was killed at the Fleet’s house, etc. Seriously, the claim was made with so little proof that if that is the standard of proof then people can call me a Satanist sacrificing black cats because I’m an atheist and my beloved Tabby-mama died last July. It’s all very interesting, to be sure, but there is very little proof anything McGowan asserts when he takes a turn down that dark road.

      I never thought the parents did it, that lunatic ransom note aside (I’ve read some fascinating studies of the letter) but I think it was an inside job. Lots of people had access to that house and the evidence was so utterly destroyed we’ll never know, but the sequence of events shows that JBR likely knew her assailant. DNA evidence released since the book was written exclude all members of the Ramsey family, including half-siblings, from the DNA evidence found on her body, meaning that even if the family was involved there had to be another, unrelated man who left the DNA evidence.

      Here’s the detail that always niggled me about the case, and its something McGowan didn’t mention, which is understandable because it’s pretty trivial. When JonBenet was autopsied, the examiner noted that she had a heart drawn on the palm of her hand with marker. That heart was not on her hand when she was put to bed that night and there were no markers in her room so that she might have wakened and done it herself (which is not really what kids do when they wake up in the middle of the night). Who drew that heart and why? That one detail was enough for me to try to write a fiction novel about the case and the killer who drew a heart on her hand.

      The case is so bizarre. So deeply strange. But I can safely say that the Fleets and the Ramseys were not Satanists who killed a little girl at a party and kept it quiet all these years. People are too mouthy, too prideful and some too stupid to hide something like that and, again, there is zero proof. But it’s interesting to speculate…

  9. Did anyone else see the verdict in the Bonacci case where the judge ordered $800k+ to be paid to him by King? The text of it is pretty damning. Think there’s any life left in the Franklin case in light of this?

    1. Unless you are referring to a settlement that is different from the one DeCamp mentions in this book, I am unfamiliar with it. But given that I had taken the million dollar settlement discussed in the book into account as I read all the evidence offered, that settlement went into my decision calculus. However, if it is new settlement with new evidence that was not already discussed, I would be only too happy to read it and see what’s what. A quick perusal of the timeline doesn’t seem to show a new settlement.

      For me the biggest blow to this case was the fact that a blood test done, in 1990 before DeCamp released this book, proved that Sheriff Wadman was not the father of Alisha Owen’s child and strangely DeCamp didn’t mention this big piece of evidence. The copy of the book I read was a re-release of the original book and at no point did DeCamp bother to bring up the fact that Wadman had been cleared as being the father of Owen’s baby, and therefore certain questions could be asked about the rest of her testimony. Even years after the fact, he didn’t mention it. That’s sort of weird…

  10. Paul Bonacci is not a fragile witness. Nor the others.

    All these witnesses have indipendently confirmed each other.

    And the book doesn’t smear Hunter S. Thompson, the book says that Paul Bonacci declared that the man filming the ritual sacrifice was named Hunter Thompson and was picked up in Las Vegas.

    1. WS, are you seriously saying that a young man who thinks he has been used in a ring of pedophiles (and I do believe that Bonacci thinks this happened to him and that he was, in fact, subject to ill-use in some regard), who thinks he was raped with a cattle-prod-like device, who thinks he was forced to have sex with a dead child, who thinks he was flown all over the country to be raped by the GOP, is not fragile? Really? We’ll have to disagree then. Most mental health professionals would disagree with you too, but I concede this is a matter of perception.

      People “independently” confirm each other in moral and paranormal panics and have done so since such things were recorded. People “independently” confirm grey aliens kidnap them and experiment on them, people “independently” confirmed that witches gathered in Salem and cast spells on enemies, people “independently” confirmed evidence of blood sacrifice of baby gentiles as performed by Jews. Of course, such naive assertions of independent corroboration ignore how easily information is disseminated and how quickly. People were asserting confidently that no child could have ever have come up with Satanic Panic accusations even as films surfaced of therapists consciously or unconsciously pulling their predicted narrative out of children who initially and continually denied the claims until they finally learned what it was their questioner wanted to hear. People asserted that no one could know such details even as books like the utterly debunked Michelle Remembers and Satan Underground crapped up the bookshelves and hacks like Bob Larson and Geraldo hosted show after show about the panic.

      And as I mention below, while it appears I misattributed the quote, which I will correct when I get a chance, this book most certainly associates Hunter Thompson with Hunter S. Thompson. Whether DeCamp made the connection himself or not, this is irrelevant since he saw fit to include the information on page 327, second edition. Why include that Hunter Thompson is the name of a well-known sleaze culture figure if that is not the connection one wants readers to make. Regardless, it’s in the book, the connection is there, and it has taken a life of its own and it’s disingenuous even to try to make the claim that was not DeCamp’s intent.

  11. The more I read this article the more it seems to me that some of the objections are rather weak: some of the answers are in the book itself.

    It seems like it wasn’t read very attentively.

  12. ” I have no idea what DeCamp really knows of Thompson, but he calls him a “well known sleaze-culture figure,” whatever that means. It does not appear as if Thompson was ever visually identified by Paul Bonacci, the man making the claim, and no greater research went into proving it.”

    Again, the book – or at least the pdf version that i have taken from the web – doesn’t say that Hunter S. Thompson, the writer, was the Hunter Thompson named by Bonacci. There indeed a line that suggests that it may be him, or, at least, that it’s the same name, as reported in the article above, “of a well know sleaze-culture figure” – it should be anyway be noted that this line is parte of an article inside the book, which article has been written by Anton Chaitkin. It’s not even a DeCamp’s locution.

    1. Actually, the book makes a very strong implication that Hunter S. Thompson was the Hunter Thompson mentioned in the book. You are correct – I missed that this was a passage from Chaitkin reproduced in the book, but it’s specious at best to say that DeCamp wasn’t trying to make that implication. Why else would he have included the passage were it not for the salacious connection of Hunter S. Thompson to the Thompson Bonacci mentioned? This one line has picked up enough ground that it is widely discussed amongst Franklin theorists, in the same vein that DeCamp pulled other famous people into the pedophilia scandal, most notably Warren Buffet. It is daft to think DeCamp wasn’t besmirching Thompson’s name. This book, in many respects, is little more than a flimsy hit piece.

  13. “Bush the Elder also played a key role via his position in the CIA in the Iran-Contra scandal, and THAT should have been what this book was about because the King scandal from all appearances was a part of the scandal. Barely registers in the midst of the incredible claims of child victims.”

    This is rather ridiculous. DeCamp studied these cases, and fought for these cases and has a deep knowledge of these cases – should he write about what he, as an attorney, have been working for so many years, or about something he knows little about?

    And about, anyway, he’s written in the book, from the perspective of the connection to this case, which he says, in fact, points exactly to Bush senior.

    1. It’s not ridiculous at all. I am discussing DeCamp’s book, not information from websites. DeCamp could have discussed nothing but the Iran-Contra case for the rest of his life but it does not change the fact that this book was, at best, 5% about Iran-Contra and 95% cattle-prod rapes, GOP pedophilia, bone meal dust and Satan in the woods in a hood. This book was pure Satanic Panic, and, I hate to keep bringing it up, I am dealing with DeCamp’s book, not the scope of his life work outside the book.

      Oh, and the “connection” to Bush he worries the most in the book is one of acceptance if not participation in child rape. I’ll be only too happy to quote from the book with page numbers if you need.

      I appreciate the fact that you took the time to leave me these comments. Even without the accusations of Satanism and pedophilia rings, the Franklin Scanda is an enormous time sink hole and the elements of child exploitation understandably make people very passionate. But I am discussing the book as DeCamp presented it, a static document. This is not a conspiracy theory site, It’s about books.

  14. As for Chief Wadman’s DNA test:

    “Chief Wadman took the stand and denied ever meeting Alisha Owen. He testified that a DNA test excluded him as the father but, inexplicably, the state wouldn’t introduce the DNA test into evidence. One of several motions for a new trial made by Owen’s appellate attorneys argued that the state didn’t introduce the DNA test into evidence, and had evinced Owen’s guilt through Wadman’s “hearsay.” Though the appellate judge later ruled that the court “erred” by allowing Wadman’s testimony without the corroboration of an actual DNA test, it refused to consider the motion because Rosenthal hadn’t objected to Wadman’s claim during the trial.”

    (from the site

    1. WalkingSlowly, even though you are discussing information from a website that is outside the pages of the book I discussed, I’m happy to discuss this website snippet.

      I stated I was surprised that DeCamp chose to leave out the DNA test in the updated edition of his book when it was known it had been proved Alisha Owen had, to be very generous, been incorrect about her baby’s father.

      I am unsure what a statement about court procedure has to do with the strange problem of DeCamp deciding to leave out that the DNA test proved Owens a liar. The problem is that Wadman mentioned the DNA test before it was entered into evidence. What you have produced here to impugn Wadman is just a procedural statement that says he should not have been permitted to mention the results of the DNA test before it was entered into evidence.

      Owen insisted that Wadman was the father of her child. DNA proved he wasn’t. That casts a shadow on Owen’s veracity and her recitation of events. Wadman was innocent of siring Owen’s child, DeCamp knew that when the second edition of his book was published and he saw fit to leave it out. I find that deliberate omission curious and so should you.

      1. I personally think that DeCamp’s book is salacious drivel and poorly written It does not take close inspection to see that DeCamp is a self promoter despite his meager attempts at self depreciation.

        I am very confused as to why you claim several times that DNA evidenced proved that Alisha Owen was a liar. “For me the biggest blow to this case was the fact that a blood test done, in 1990 before DeCamp released this book, proved that Sheriff Wadman was not the father of Alisha Owen’s child and strangely DeCamp didn’t mention this big piece of evidence. The copy of the book I read was a re-release of the original book and at no point did DeCamp bother to bring up the fact that Wadman had been cleared as being the father of Owen’s baby, and therefore certain questions could be asked about the rest of her testimony. Even years after the fact, he didn’t mention it. That’s sort of weird…”

        ““Chief Wadman took the stand and denied ever meeting Alisha Owen. He testified that a DNA test excluded him as the father but, inexplicably, the state wouldn’t introduce the DNA test into evidence. One of several motions for a new trial made by Owen’s appellate attorneys argued that the state didn’t introduce the DNA test into evidence, and had evinced Owen’s guilt through Wadman’s “hearsay.” Though the appellate judge later ruled that the court “erred” by allowing Wadman’s testimony without the corroboration of an actual DNA test, it refused to consider the motion because Rosenthal hadn’t objected to Wadman’s claim during the trial.”

        So Wadman claimed the DNA cleared him. You really should explore the transcript. Wadman also claimed that he could not have committed the acts he was accused of because he had an injured and disabled arm. His Police Chief application clearly claims that his arm is not disabled. The record also shows that Wadman testified in another trial that he was a crack shot with that same arm when he shot and killed a man in the back. All three statements cannot be true.

        Don’t you think that if Alisha Owen claimed that Wadman was the father of her child under oath, that the statement would be one of the perjury charges? If she was a liar and DNA evidence proved that Wadman was not the father…sounds like a slam dunk for the prosecution to me. Funny, that the claim was not one of the 8 perjury charges. You are right, it is weird that the prosecution never once tried to enter any test results as evidence! You mention that Wadman was “cleared as the father”. Where did you get that idea? That issue was never addressed in any trial at any time.

        The appellate opinion is on file and available for public inspection. It very clearly states that the trial Judge was wrong “erred” in allowing Wadman to make statements without evidence; since Owen’s attorney did not make a record of his objection that is too bad for Owen. Now, that is weird! The Nebraska Appellate Court just stated in writing for all time that the trial court was wrong to allow a former police chief to make statements with no evidence (hearsay) that were damaging and by their nature made the defendant appear guilty, but because the attorney did not object that Wadman’s statements were acceptable. The trial transcript shows that Rosenthal made made hundreds of objections, to the point where he was threatened with contempt of court and jail.

        There is another court case that is even weirder. Wadman actually sued the Owen family for money not long after a blood draw for the supposed “DNA” tests that you say proved Owen was a liar. Super weird that Wadman did not win that law suit.

        Is it possible that no DNA tests exist or at least DNA test as we know them today? Or maybe the test was inconclusive and thus did not clear anyone? Wouldn’t one of those scenarios make sense of the lack of evidence being entered?

        While I agree with your dismay at DeCamp’s book I am perplexed by your logic. The book is shoddy and exploitative yet, you seem to base opinions and beliefs on the case based upon his melodramatic assertions. At least you are honest in your bias ” Since I don’t believe there was a cover up Caradori’s death could not serve a cover up ” It seems to me that you are saying, “I do not believe it, so it cannot be true. ” That is an interesting use of logic. J. M. Barrie had Peter Pan use the same syllogistic reasoning in reverse to revive Tinker Bell.

        I am disappointed that you are unable to separate DeCamp’s version of events with all of it’s inaccuracies with reality as shown on the public record. I would suggest that read the record before you make statements and assertions. You claim that your post is just a book review but it seems that you have made some statements that are not in John DeCamp’s book nor supported by any documented evidence .
        If you would be interested in reading actual trial transcripts or viewing evidence that was entered in the trial or appeals, I would suggest that you read Nick Bryant’s treatment of the topic Using a true investigative journalistic standard, every assertion has been triple corroborated and much of the corroboration and documentation is actually provided in full in the last 150 pages of the book. Though I believe that you would do better with the newly released paper back version. It is actually a book not the grand stand ravings of a self proclaimed martyred knight.
        Much of the wacko garbage that you attribute to Bonacci and Owen can be blamed on Decamp’s schizophrenic writing style and not actually accusations that either ever made.

        1. Avid reader, thanks for this comment, and this comment is a perfect example of why I started my new conspiracy theory site. Since IROB is a book discussion site, when I discussed conspiracy theory here, I discuss what I find in the book that I read that covers the theory.

          After telling enough people like you who have a depth and a breadth of knowledge about the case to stick to the information in the book, I realized that was unfair because while I can discuss a bizarro novella and the discussion not suffer because I didn’t read all bizarro before discussing it, that is not the case with books that handle conspiracy theory. The court records, as you recommend I read, other books, etc. are very important to discussing the theory and I haven’t read them because I was just doing a book review.

          But when little snippets of information cropped up, like the DNA/blood test, I would speak of them after researching that bit and of course there is more to it, and it had a cascading effect because once you open that door, you can’t close. Or you can’t close it with any sense of fairness. But if/when, probably when, I discuss the Franklin Scandal on Houdini’s Revenge, I will have reread this book, read all additional books on the topic, as well as websites and court records. Until then I’m going to refrain talking about much that veers away from the book so I can’t respond intelligently to anything that requires the court records.

          I will say I find your characterization of DeCamp interesting and even though it deviates from content from the book, if you wanted to discuss more of why you hold DeCamp in such low esteem, I’d be interested in hearing it. I saw him as a product of the time in which he wrote and didn’t pick up on the character flaws you discuss. But I also know less about the case. I’d love to hear why you have this opinion of him.

          The only thing I can concretely address is this:

          At least you are honest in your bias ” Since I don’t believe there was a cover up Caradori’s death could not serve a cover up ” It seems to me that you are saying, “I do not believe it, so it cannot be true. ” That is an interesting use of logic. J. M. Barrie had Peter Pan use the same syllogistic reasoning in reverse to revive Tinker Bell.

          (eta: edited to correct my borked block quote)

          Either I expressed myself poorly or you misunderstood – let’s go with the former. What I hoped would be taken away is that I don’t think that DeCamp set up the evidence that proved anything happened. No forensic or on the ground investigations – just interviews with deeply disturbed young people and lots of conjecture If he proved nothing worth covering up, then within the context of examining this book, Caradori’s death could not be a part of a coverup. What would have been the point of killing a man interviewing witnesses who were giving evidence of something that DeCamp’s book didn’t even come close to proving happened. When someone makes extraordinary claims, like that young people had been used as sex slaves by the GOP and flown all over the country, some killed and ground into bone meal and so on, he has to have extraordinary proof. DeCamp had almost nothing (because I believe that Bonacci, at least, was likely ill-used at some point in his life) and almost nothing doesn’t equal a conspiracy on the part of the GOP to make kids sex slaves and without a conspiracy, why would the Powers That Be kill Caradori. My statement was based on the shoddy job DeCamp did in this book, not a pre-set belief that nothing happened just because I don’t “believe” in the scandal.

          Thanks again for this comment. If I discuss the Franklin Scandal as a whole over on HRev, I will bear your reading suggestions in mind.

    1. My life has been remarkably busy but I have a program on Youtube bookmarked to watch called “Conspiracy of Silence.” Is that the one you mean. Now that I can watch Youtube on my Apple TV, I really have no excuse not to watch it. Let me know…

  15. Hello, and well done for reading and reviewing the book.I had stumbled across this review whilst doing other research and want to write a critique of it.

    This investigation and its related events provide insight into, what I would consider the most detestable, abhorrent behavior capable of a human being, therefore, when i see poor reviews associated with this line of research I feel compelled to respond.

    Firstly though, I would like to give you the opportunity to post an updated complete review of the book and any of its associated contents, to make sure I have the most up to date position you hold.So, 24 hours from writing this post I will begin a critique, feel free to ask questions at anytime.
    Thank you

    1. Hey k.sullivan, you don’t have to give me a heads up before you critique my critique. I’m really busy and am unlikely to be able to revisit the text of this case for a while (and I am loath to include outside source materials in book reviews but in this case I think it is unfair now to limit people just to DeCamp’s book). Please write what you need to write and post a link when you’re finished – I would be only too happy to have a read of what you find, especially if you manage to find a source that references any physical evidence, movies or DNA/forensics that back up the claims made against the Powers That Be. I agree with you – some of the people involved in the Franklin Abuse Scandal were indeed subjected to the worst human beings can do, be it sexual abuse or grandstanding exploitation. Paul Bonacci, especially, has suffered.

      So yeah, write what you wanna write and come back and link to it, even if it just tears up what I have to say on the topic. Nothing wrong with sharing ideas, even those utterly contrary to mine. 🙂

  16. Where’s there’s smoke there’s fire: Hunter S. Thompson’s assistant has said that he viewed snuff films and invited her to watch one with him but she refused so he threw her out of his house.
    Hunter S. Thompson said he liked to kill on Live TV on Late Night with David Letterman back in 1982.
    He hung out with the elites and later on professed that he thought 911 was an inside job – maybe he knew more than he was letting on.

    1. Can you find the name of the movie she was asked to watch? Because during that time there were films out that either used the name “snuff” in the title or incorporated “snuff” and got called snuff films. Cannibal Holocaust comes to mind as one of the latter because animals were killed on film. Unless I have more information I can’t really put much faith in that statement. People say all kinds of things – if personal statements were enough to impugn someone we’d all be in deep trouble.

      Also, HST talked all kinds of crap. I don’t think Trump grabbed women by the genitals nor do I think HST killed anyone because bombastic and weird men say bombastic and weird things. HST’s actual behavior showed him to be paranoid of and angered by the elites. His outburst at Nixon’s death is sheer poetry. He had no respect for such people and would have delighted in outing them had he such information.

  17. have you checked out King’s attendance at the RNC ;84? 88 ? singing the National Anthem .? GHWB & Tom Kean ;
    I do not dispute your critique of the book . It certainly made fascinating reading .
    King’s yellow convertible ? The Director of Boys & Girls Town , going to the Bishop , or whatever ,of the Catholic Church , and being told to mind his own business ? While the Church itself is questionable .
    His private investigator ,State Trooper , etc . killed in airplane crash ? Thank you for tackling such a book with so manny details .

    1. I haven’t had the time to look into all these things but feel free to leave links to anything you think people would find relevant. It may temporarily get stuck in moderation if wordpress thinks there are too many links but I’ll approve it. Thanks for commenting!

  18. Satanic panic is a little bit before my time. But to say that these people do not exist is ridiculous. I agree with you about not saying anything about Noreen. Shame on anyone that does. John De Camp did do a lot of research on this and three people involved in this case were murdered and that is a fact. I would love to believe that we live in a land that these things do not exist. The truth is we live in a country that started with genocide and theft of other people’s land.

    1. Hello, Tracie. No worries about Satanic Panic being before your time – chances are it will come back around in your lifetime in some form or other. Witch trials, Red Scare, Satanic Panic – this sort of societal fear never really goes away.

      What people do you mean, when you say it’s ridiculous to say they don’t exist? I admit freely there are people who abuse children – sometimes they do it in a group – and there are definitely Satanists and there are also Satanists who have done some pretty weird or illegal things. They exist, for sure.

      But until there’s more proof than Paul Bonacci’s word linking all of the Franklin Scandal together, it’s very hard to believe that there was ever an organized group of Satanists who kidnapped children in Nebraska (and Iowa if one believes the Gosch element of the story), tortured them, and sent them all over the country to sexually service the Republican party.

      Horrible stuff happens. There’s been a deluge of relatively sound proof coming out of the UK indicating that there has been group of sexually demented celebrities, politicians and nobles who used their social work with abandoned, orphaned, sick or troubled children to engage in organized pedophilia, up to and possibly including the creation of snuff films (still reading about Warwick Spinks – not sure what I think yet). So I’m willing to believe if given more proof than just the word of disturbed people who cannot produce a lick of proof to back their claims.

      And I’m glad to read that you sympathize with Noreen. A lot of people really dislike her, like they think she’s somehow a fame whore or trying to make money off her son’s memory. I think she’s actually holding up far better than one could hope given the people who have used her and yanked her around. Paul Bonacci and his stories of kidnapping and selling Johnny to Michael Aquino, Ted Gunderson and his repulsiveness, Jeff Gannon, all the people who wrote books, all the people who contact her with sickening and strange stories – if it had been me I don’t know how I could have endured it at all.

      I’m not sure how to link in genocide and broken treaties with organized pedophilia and Satanic Panic but I can say if you dig far enough, every modern nation was built on the backs of other people. I can’t think of a single country that hasn’t engaged in some sort of colonialism or genocidal behavior. It’s very saddening to realize this – I guess all we can do rise above our sorry beginnings.

      Thanks for commenting! I’m always surprised to see that people are still reading this entry and I appreciate it when people take the time to comment.

  19. Great article.

    Like many high-profile sex abuse cases, the Franklin debacle got way too sensationalistic and weird to be believable. Tying people like president Bush or Hunter Thompson into it was the death knell for its credibility.

    Here’s the real story:

    Apparently there was a nutcase in Nebraska named Michael Casey who wanted to shop a movie script involving sex abuse at Boy’s Town…or something. He was a disgruntled former employee of Boy’s Town who met Alisha Owen in the psych ward! He had previously been involved in an intricate hoax involving Patty Hearst and the LA Times. (Not even kidding). Anyway, I guess he convinced Alisha and the rest of the “kids” to testify about the alleged conspiracy of abuse, hence the perjury charge she incurred.

    The problem with these conspiracy theories is that they throw in the whole kitchen sink and attempt to link high-profile people and events that have no connection. As you stated, sexual abuse probably happened to SOME of these victims at the hands of SOME of the alleged perps, but it sure as hell didn’t happen at the White House and involve Johnny Gosch or Bohemian Grove. That kind of talk is right up there with Elvis sightings and alien abductions!

    Sexual abuse of children is a serious enough problem that it doesn’t need a Satanic/supernatural element to gain attention. It also doesn’t have to be perpetrated by big-name politicians or celebrities to matter. Real sex trafficking is happening at the end of your street where the foster child is being sold for a profit. It’s the lone LGBT teen at the bus stop who has just runaway from an abusive home into the arms of a pimp. It’s the little Black or Latino girl who shows up to school with bruises and is afraid to make eye contact. Sadly, many people won’t know it when they see it because of ridiculous fantasies like the Franklin Coverup.


    Michael Casey Patty Hearst Hoax:

    Franklin Scandal Wikipedia Page:

    NY Times: Omaha Grand Jury Rules Franklin Scandal A Hoax

  20. This all happened here in the UK and over the last decade has begun to come to light. Right up to the highest and most powerful people.

    And btw Paul Banucci – who you belittled here so severely, was compensated one million dollars, look it up!

    1. Verity, the Buzzfeed article won’t load for me,which is just as well. Surely you can find a better source than that. In regards to Liz Maclean I guess you think her stroke was really some sort of murder from the powers that be for her role in Operation Yewtree. It’s hard for me to tell because the article itself doesn’t really explain how it is this woman died other than that she must have been murdered. It invokes the death of Jill Dando as if that somehow or another draws a clear link.

      But let’s compare the extraordinary amount of evidence uncovered in the Rotherham and Operation Yewtree cases in the UK. Both cases had impressive amounts of evidence that went far beyond eyewitness testimony provided by a handful of unstable teenagers who were later proven to have committed perjury. Those cases undoubtedly show official corruption, misuse of children, and legal attempts at coverup that are all missing in the Franklin case outside of allegations not backed by anything more than words.

      Did you actually read my article or did you glean enough to determine I wasn’t pro-conspiracy in this case and just let loose on me with the parts that matter the most to you. That has to be the reason you felt you needed to tell me about Bonacci’s lawsuit. Go back up and read. I specifically said that none of the kids in the Franklin scandal got any justice except for Paul Bonacci, who got a small amount of justice in his million dollar award. But he will never see that money so that justice doesn’t seem to be worth much.

      I also wonder how much more that civil case proves compared to the perjury convictions against Paul. You see, Paul only got that money in the form of a default judgment. Larry King never showed up in the court to defend himself in the civil case, which gave an automatic default judgment to Paul. No jury listened to the facts and decided that Paul endured enough suffering to be awarded that large sum of money – it was just a default judgment. His perjury conviction definitely was not default. So why does one carry weight with you while the other doesn’t.

      I also am not sure why you feel I am belittling Paul. I’m pretty careful in the article to reveal that I think Paul indeed received abuse. I do not think it comes close to the sorts of abuse that he testified about – some of it he would never have survived if it actually happened. But that doesn’t change the fact that I do believe that a couple of the kids associated with the Franklin scandal were indeed victimized. I believe some form of sexual abuse rendered Paul mentally ill and willing to say anything people in authority told him to say. I think he was a victim too, just not in the way you think he was.

      I appreciate you taking time to leave comments here but next time I suggest you read the entire article you’re responding to carefully before beginning to type. Also, there is so much evidence on all of the British cases at the moment that you can get far better sources than the ones you used. Just going to Wiki and checking sources there will lead you to excellent information that show the ins and outs of Operation Yewtree, the Jersey Island cases and on and on. When the mainstream media has dozens of detailed articles that express the same information and sentiments as crypto-conspiracy sites, no need to run the risk of being dismissed because you used for proof a site that recently ran an article on the beauty of armpit tattoos. Good luck to you.

  21. Slick. How much did they pay you to write this? Or did you get your pick of children at the last event you attended?

    1. Dude, wanna how I know you’re either trolling and/or too dumb to be permitted to use sharp objects? It’s not because you just called a person whose name you probably won’t know until you read this comment a pedophile apologist paid in children to rape on the basis of a ten year old book discussion. It’s because you left this comment using a Comcast commercial IP giving your location and an email address you’ve used across multiple forums over the years. No real Pizzagate paranoiac would be this stupid, but then again, surely a troll would be smarter than this, too. Even though you just accused me of one of the worst things a human can do because I pointed out problems in the Franklin scandal narrative, I’d like to offer you some unsolicited advice: the QAnon-ers and Pizzagaters eat their own with regularity. One false move and you’ll be greased for the spit. Anonymity is your friend when you’re a lunatic who slings around pedophilia and child rape accusations until they have lost any meaning, all the more important when you choose to surround yourself with such people.

      tl;dr: lol, you’re a cretin.

  22. I’ve long been fascinated by this particular conspiracy theory and was damn near elated when my copy of this particular tome arrived outside my door (too thick to fit through the mail slot!). Not even a few chapters in I came to realize, much like another book series that seemed to hold promise but ultimately failed to impress (beyond entertainment value) – David Paulides’ Missing 4-11 – it was the all-too-typical case of a few intriguing puffs of smoke, but no fire to be found. The germ of something, albeit something altogether less salacious, drowned in hearsay, conjecture, and that tin-foil tendency to forge connections that require the kind of bewildering leaps in logic that would give the schizophrenic guy talking to empty parking space outside the local 7-11 pause (assuming he doesn’t already have a copy of this or Behold A Pale Horse tucked away amongst the recyclable cans and purloined junk mail in his shopping cart). If anything, I found this book far more irresponsible (and morally indefensible) than Paulides’ as, while Paulides is like a gnat flying around a government agency subtly alleging Bigfoot collusion, DeCamp, in true Satanic Panic fashion, names names with utmost certainty and besmirches countless innocent people with the absolute WORST kinds of allegations. Anyways, thanks for your balanced, rational review of this flawed, facinating, but ultimately preposterous piece of work. Have enjoyed reading your reviews for some time now and was stoked to scroll back and see that you covered this one!

  23. Hi Anita,

    Have you read Nick Bryant’s “The Franklin Scandal”?

    If so, I highly recommend it. I think it will change your mind as to the realities of this case. Far superior to DeCamp’s title.

    Kind regards,


Leave a Reply to anitadalton Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *