Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Conspiracy of Silence Documentary

I think this page should make mention of the documentary 'Conspiracy of Silence' made about this matter and available online (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDVhoiirByo). At present the page sounds as if it is documenting a conspiracy theory or something which has been proven to be untrue (talking about how the allegations lack credibility etc.). In my view any serious allegation about paedophilia/rape/sex crimes has credibility and is made more serious by the fact that the supposed victim has spent 4 years in jail for perjury. It is very hard to watch the above documentary without at least considering the possibility that the allegations are true. Especially with similar (and genuine) allegations currently being investigated in the UK about a paedophile ring (and corresponding cover up) operating out of Westminster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.208.181 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, any "documentary" about paedophillia/rape/sex crimes should only be noted for the opinions presented as opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, but at the moment it isn't mentioned, the page seems a little one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.208.181 (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If the comment would be libel per se, we would need to be very careful—not because of any potential liability for Wikipedia or the editor (at least, in the US, per Section 230), but because it's the right thing to do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I can understand that and I myself am not completely sure of the truth here, It's just that it is extremely hard to watch the above documentary fully (with extensive and detailed interviews with the 'victims') while keeping the 'they fabricated all this for money' line in your head (especially considering the way certain people involved have mysteriously died). If it is all a fabrication then these people are master actors. If you have the time I encourage you to watch this documentary, if for no other reason than to hear the 'victims' make the allegations themselves. Perhaps their could be a separate page detailing the 'conspiracy' theory regarding this matter (I have often thought that to be a very good way Wikipedia has of dealing with conspiracy theories) or a link to a page on the documentary itself and how it was cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.208.181 (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Was this really a Discovery Channel documentary and was it "Banned" as these other websites claim? The documentary is mentioned in various places, especially now with all the British pedophilia rings in the news. Their point is basically "look it happens in America also and they also cover it up." It was supposedly set to air on 5/3/94. Leaving that out there without a mention might not be the best thing, but the issue is what to say about it. Ileanadu (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Banned is the wrong word. No one knows exactly why the documentary was never aired. According to Yorkshire Television, who were contracted to produce the documentary, Discovery Channel decided at the last minute that the subject matter was not suitable for their audience. At the time, Congress was debating new censorship laws and according to an insider at Yorkshire television, several (unnamed) congressmen allegedly threatened the TV Cable industry with restrictive legislation if the documentary was aired so it was pulled from scheduling. Whatever the reason, not long after, the rights to the documentary were purchased by an unknown party who is thought to have had it destroyed. Wayne (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The Reptilians did not approve of the contents and if they don't approve then that's that!--MONGO 05:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, if the rights-holder wanted it destroyed, then they should issue a takedown notice to YouTube. In any case, though, that is almost certainly an unauthorized copy on YouTube, so we cannot use it. We could use commentary about it, if such exists, not just a blog report of someone talking to "an insider at Yorkshire Television" — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

So "original research" can't be cited. "First hand sources" can't be quoted. Peer-reviewed articles are just not peer-reviewed enough. Blogs are unacceptable. The documentary is "unauthorised" so can't be referenced.

Which means, lo and behold, the only data that passes your stringent tests of objectivity just happens to entirely support the official position and entirely suppress the alternatives.

I must say I also greatly admire your usage of the term "conspiracy theory" to even further limit available information. Apparently on Wiki a "conspiracy theory" is anything - even a collection of proven facts or supported data - which, if published would be detrimental to a belief system dear to the heart of the most embedded or dedicated editors.

Disgraceful.

Black Catte (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You didn't even mention that these illustrious editors ignore good faith requests for dialogue on the Talk page about proposed edits (see above for 3-4 times this happened to me) and reactively accuse those who disagree with them of being sock puppets. Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Never been referred to as "illustrious"...thank you!--MONGO 23:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you self-identify as "reactive" and willfully ignorant, MONGO. BTW, as per the discussion of Chris Kyle on your Talk page, according to the New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs , at least 3 SEALs recounted Kyle claiming to have committed indiscriminate murder at the Superdome. So when you accuse the media of generating that story based on hearsay, I'd say you reveal your own political, "POV-pushing" biases rather strongly. Luminous Hypothesis (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Kyle and Navy SEALs have nothing to do with this article. Please stop importing other articles' content disputes into this one. Due to its relentless reliance on unreliable sources and conspiracy theories, this article was quite appropriately stubbed and started over. Let's not be forced to resort such drastic measures again. These allegations are hideous. The people who made these allegations either recanted, were convicted of perjury and sent to prison, or were declared incompetent to stand trial after being indicted for perjury. The appropriate way to handle these allegations should be very clear to anyone concerned with Wikipedia's reputation. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That New Yorker piece fails to identify who those SEALS who made that claim are...and its based on a story made by Chris Kyle himself that in which he stated to another SEAL years before that he knew of some former military that had left the service, joined private security and that they had been at the Superdome. Kyle never said he was there, not once. If you have any inclination about how to do a shread of investigative work you might figure out how tall tales get made based on earlier reports and how, especially when some persons are no longer alive to defend themselves, that conspiracy theorist such as you enjoy living in a world of lies rather than accepting the truth. The truth here in this article is that none of the bullshit you're peddling has a shread of proof to it...its all bullshit. Further disruption of this article by a bullshit peddler like you will lead to you being blocked...which would be a zero loss to the project since you're not here to do anything but promote bullshit and spread lies and misinformation.--MONGO 11:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe, after just watching the full Documentary (slightly edited evidently), and reading some of the comments here, and all of the main article, that if the Discovery Channel could confirm that this was their work, or that they had indeed placed in much work to make a video documentary, that this mere fact would be worthy of mention in the main article. (John G. Lewis (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC))

How is that going to happen?--MONGO 22:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Mongo: I do not want to get into a dispute over facts and theory, here. Everyone's time is precious. Yet someone did make a comment that the article appears slanted in the direction of FBI/Federal Policy/Official Judicial action. And, maybe after all, this side does represent the truth. I am not saying otherwise, but I am not being affirmative either. We should not go to Wiki as a forum to discuss opinions and views: Wiki's declared policy is very much against it. As if... and please forgive this going on to the old Larry King show of CNN, the 1990's to 2000's. However, if someone could contact Discovery and confirm that the documentary work, or much of it, in "Conspiracy of Silence" was indeed done by them, and that therefore it is true they did not broadcast due to some private reasons, I find this mere fact worthy of mention in the article. One could so insert: "However, the Discovery Channel once planned a special that supported the molestation charges: 'Conspiracy of Silence', and which was critical of governmental intervention, and judicial action. Nonetheless, they decided not to broadcast..." This would be a fair inclusion, along these lines. And perhaps Discovery can, if they did produce, give you the reasons why they didn't broadcast? Further, Mongo, I remember no point on "Conspiracy ... " where cannibalism was mentioned. (John G. Lewis (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC))

We cannot go on someone's word...we depend on reliable printed sources and some sort of verbal affidavit is not going to suffice. Discovery probably pulled the documentary which though they knew they were promoting a conspiracy theory, it probably was too slanderous to broadcast.--MONGO 16:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Very well. (John G. Lewis (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC))

John. This is an article by Ted Gunderson, former head of the Los Angeles FBI, explaining what happened to the documentary. Wayne (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that a carbon copy scandal is now being investigated in England and that the Franklin scandal has been mentioned. Several news sources in America have also mentioned Franklin as fact in the last six months.

Quote: Numerous high ranking British politicians are being investigated for their involvement in an extensive pedophile ring, however the full scope of this scandal can't be fully appreciated without looking at the other side of the Atlantic. It wasn't that long ago that those who claimed that there was a massive pedophile ring involving officials in the highest levels of government were written off as conspiracy theorists and kooks. That is no longer the case, at least in the U.K. It turns out that this so called conspiracy theory was true, and is finally being officially investigated."

Then there is the child sex ring exposed in Virginia last year that was compared to the Franklin scandal (a VERY prominent corporation was fined $400 million for their involvement. I wont say who they are because their Wikipedia page doesn't mention it), Congressman Frank Wolf is pushing the investigation into this, and other child sex rings in Vermont and Pennsylvania. I give another source here but there are plenty more if you do a search. Wayne (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There could be hundreds of child sex rings out there but that would not make this one true. All the reliable sources regarding this one say it was a hoax so stop POV conspiracy theories please. Neither of those sources you link say one iota about this case.--MONGO 13:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wayne: I looked up Ted Gunderson on Wiki, and we are not sure if he is even alive or dead ?! Interestingly, he is a Conspiracy Theorist, yet evidently denied Franklin. This whole matter sounds batty, iyw, and problematical, and I might therefore recommend to Wiki to take the whole (Franklin) article down until it can be sourced better and more appropriately. An article against a particular conspiracy, by a general Conspiracy Theorist, who we do not know is alive or dead... Imho, I would toss the whole article, and place up a new one, on Franklyn, this time giving the view of both sides rather equal measure, but concluding with *we just do not know*. And there is no harm in this, as there is obviously some decent reason to believe in the accusers here. Thankfully, Wiki is not a U.S. Court of Law, so we do not have to abide by their ridiculous rules, standards and protocol. We can be more philosophical about the whole matter, more abstract, and say: we are just not sure where the truth lies here. This is to say, we should leave the matter open and unresolved until we have something definite one way or the other. Maybe we will never get this, as there are unsolved mysteries in history. So be it then. But doing this is better than your strategy of saying, 'We know the truth here, everyone else is disqualified, so be quiet.' This may work in a court of law (and I presume it indeed did), but not necessarily here. And btw, Truth itself can be considered a 'pov'.

Anyway, I grant that you (Mongo), Wayne, and others, no doubt have researched this far more than I did. But from what I limitedly saw, it would give any one pause for concern, especially when combined with similar activities elsewhere. And there is one more important, final point here: in the Documentary, I remember no mention of sacrifice or Devil Worship, and certainly not cannibalism. Don't trump up the charges, placing in "and" everywhere, and then say "they [the accused; the officials, politicians, etc.] are innocent". This is just straw man argumentation. (John G. Lewis (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC))

Come on, John. Please review WP:BLP. This is Wikipedia policy. We cannot violate it. The last word on this subject from any court with jurisdiction was a perjury conviction for one of the accusers, a finding that another accuser indicted for perjury was unfit to stand trial, and a finding that their accusations were a "carefully crafted hoax." It is Wikipedia policy to report these findings, and show zero tolerance for rumors, conspiracy theories, and allegations that are unproven. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

While we have to report the findings of the Grand Jury we cant give them too much weight. According to the American Bar Association, the grand jury is simply a "rubber stamp" for the prosecution. Defendants have no right to present their case or have legal representation. A judge is not present during proceedings and he does not give the jury any procedural directions. Only 12 of 36 jury members are required to concur to reach a decision. Grand jurors can not be rejected for bias or conflict of interest. The prosecutor alone decides which witnesses can testify. One Federal Judge has stated that "the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury." It should be noted that several jurors in the Franklin case have since stated that the prosecutor actually told them during deliberation what findings to make in this case. I agree that we should show zero tolerance for rumors, conspiracy theories, and allegations that are unproven but this article avoids even those facts that are proven if they at all suggest there may be truth in any of the accusations. The Paul Bonacci lawsuit is just one example of a fact supported by RS that has consistently been rejected for this article. Wayne (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Too much focus on one phase of the proceedings. Deliberately ignoring other phases of the proceedings, wherein one of the accusers was proven guilty of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt, as found by a unanimous jury. The defendant presented her cases and had legal representation, but was sentenced to prison for 4-1/2 years for the crime of perjury. A judge was present to ensure a fair trial. Please explain that one away, Wayne. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Easy. Firstly...there were 48 witnesses to the abuse, only four were chosen by the prosecution to give evidence. Two were in jail and one had psychiatric issues and those three are mentioned in the article. The fourth was the only one that had reported the abuse before the Franklin case actually came up. She was found to be credible and one of her abusers was actually charged, she is not mentioned at all (at least not anymore, despite being reliably sourced that was deleted from the article). Secondly, Alisha Owen was not charged with perjury over the broad accusations of abuse, the judge found that the abuse had occurred. She was charged with perjury over specific allegations against a specific person, one of which was her claim that he had fathered her child. That person testified that he had previously taken a paternity test which showed he was not the father. He declined to provide proof he had taken the test and the judge accepted his testimony. Wayne (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

When prosecutors are selective about the witnesses they present, it's because some are more credible than others. They present those witnesses who are the most credible. The two who were in prison recanted. Paul Bonacci was found psychiatrically unfit to stand trial. So it came down to Alisha Owen, who was apparently the most credible witness out of the entire 48-witness pool, and she was found guilty of perjury. The only reasonable conclusion is that they were all lying. In the absence of any credible evidence from a reliable source (per WP:RS) that these legal proceedings were tainted or rigged in some way, Wikipedia simply reports the verdicts and the grand jury findings dispassionately.

We have been reviewing these sources for about three years now. Nothing has changed. A key source supporting the conspiracy theories was found to be unreliable. There has been no sudden emergence of new witnesses or a new reliable source. Previous efforts to push conspiracy theories into the article resulted in the article being stubbed, and then resulted in full protection which will apparently be indefinite. This article has been a battlefield for too long. Accept the result. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No reference to Lawrence E. King Jr. being known as Larry

Lawrence E. King Jr. is also know as Larry, the article should reflect this. Eulice Washington calls him Larry King in this clip youtube clip. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 March 2015

Paul Bonacci, one of the original kids who made these allegations, won a million dollar lawsuit against Lawrence E. King for the abuse. In the deposition and court documents, he lists a number of other politicians and gives a lot more info.

You can find a video link of the deposition as well as court documents online. 

162.203.101.191 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

---

http://showcase.netins.net/web/renegadesports/c2bc/Franklin%20Coverup/Mind%20Control%20Victim%20Awarded%20$1%20Million.htm

Judge makes $1 million award Summary: in porn lawsuit A federal judge in Lincoln, Neb., has awarded $1 million to an Omaha man who claimed the former manager of a defunct Omaha credit union forced him into child pornography years ago. Senior U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom said the judgment for Paul Bonacci, 31, was a "fair amount" for mental and physical injuries Bonacci attributed to Lawrence King. Source: The Des Moines Register Date: 02/24/1999 GangofOne (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13 , you have changed edit request answer from no to yes without responding to latest contribution. Please make a comment explaining your reasoning.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm still not seeing a reliable source here. The site you cite doesn't appear to be reliable or notable (it doesn't appear to be from a news agency or other organization with "editorial oversight" and appears to be a copy pasted bunch of stuff from other sites and all of the links on that page to the "sources" it uses don't actually take you to the sources or even worse resolve to "site not found". — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with a simple question: if The Des Moines Register Date: 02/24/1999 actually says what this webpage says it does, is The Des Moines Register a reliable source?GangofOne (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/97302292/Paul-Bonacci-Court-Transcripts-from-Larry-King-Lawsuit GangofOne (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

http://docslide.us/documents/paul-bonacci-court-transcripts-from-larry-king-lawsuit.html GangofOne (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Court transcripts are primary sources. Wikipedia greatly prefers WP:SECONDARY sources, which analyze and describe the primary source material. Binksternet (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The Des Moines Register Date: 02/24/1999 GangofOne (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Article is biased and should not have protected edit settings--lacks perspective, breadth of information

While not inclined to believe conspiracy theories, I do find it odd that this article has a protected editing status, particularly given how fully one-sided the presentation of facts and information is. The author neglects to even mention, for example, that (although she only served 4 1/2 years), Alisha Owen was sentenced to 27 years in prison for perjury. This is an excessive penalty by any standard. Furthermore, Owen subsequently sued the State of Nebraska in appellate court, due in part to alleged misconduct and improper communication between the judge and jury during her trial (see source link below). None of these facts, nor any others running counter to the argument that this case was a hoax and the alleged victims were liars, is presented in this article.

This Wiki article, as it stands, fails to even provide the perspective of those who alleged that abuse did in fact take place. Whether or not the alleged crimes took place, this article should be much longer, more nuanced, and present both sides of the issue. And just to play devil's advocate, if there was no abuse and no cover-up, who is so determined to keep this article short and one-sided, and block others from editing it?

Please note: I did not insert the first to references and don't know how to remove them. I only cited the legal doc.

MGK206 (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Addendum re: Biased, Ego-Driven Obstruction by certain Wiki users

I've combed through all the history, and then some, to try to get to the bottom of the bizarre nature of this article as it stands, and the macho shoving match around its edits. This entire situation is such a mess. Whatever one's belief about the facts of this case, and whatever their personal stake in said case (because for some of you it appears to be awfully personal--either that or you don't have much going on for yourself), an entire breadth of information, with all facts and all perspectives, should be provided. This is the STANDARD for journalism as well as scholarly articles. The back and forth bullying and the clear obstruction of information dissemination by some with respect to this article and this story is truly appalling and flies in the face of all academic standards. I have contacted Wikipedia and complained, providing several links, citations and usernames. Cheers! MGK206 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: again, still not my citations below — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGK206 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Contact whoever you wish. We're not going to violate our BLP policy to add material that is circumspect at best.--MONGO 20:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And who are those "we" exactly? Currently this article is violating the BLP policy because of "biased, malicious or overly promotional content". The current article is an excellent example of biased information in Wikipedia by means of information suppression, so much that it is hard to believe that no dishonesty is involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression Harald88 (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

more info helpful for developing the article, possibly

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/des-moines/2014/01/14/documentary-about-gosch-to-premiere-in-utah/4453513/

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/readers-watchdog/2015/04/08/fleur-showing-johnny-gosch-documentary/25488959/ apparently this film is downloadable. This article mentions Paul Bonacci. "Police recovered no evidence after Gosch's abduction, and arrested no suspects. Nine years later, Paul Bonacci, a sex abuse victim and offender in Omaha who had multiple-personality disorder, told his attorney and local media he helped abduct Gosch. Bonacci claimed he was the first to molest Gosch on film as part of a far-reaching child-sex ring. West Des Moines police dismissed Bonacci's story without ever interviewing him. A grand jury later called the sex abuse allegations "a carefully crafted hoax."" GangofOne (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The amount of detail that has already been provided in the article mainspace, regarding these unproven and sensational accusations that one grand jury called a "carefully crafted hoax" and led to one of the accusers going to prison for perjury, is sufficient by Wikipedia standards. WP:BLP is one of the bedrock principles of Wikipedia and the Des Moines Register doesn't have to follow it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)