Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

Boys Town

the "Boys Town" link in this page links to Boys Town , Nebraska -but in fact is meant to link to another article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Town_(organization)

68.34.127.226 (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Done.--MONGO 20:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Absurdly biased

Reads like it was written by the Republican Party. I won’t even bother trying to follow in others’ footsteps and dare to add the inconvenient information that Paul Bonacci was awarded $1 million for the abuse and life-altering mental damage he suffered at the hands of Larry King. Or the information in a well regarded British film company’s documentary, or several other documentaries, or a book written by a Republican state senator. I would clearly just get subjected to obstruction and abuse. I can instantly see one obstructive editor below has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and consistent personal abuse. This article is clearly watched be many dedicated eyes. Wikipedia seems to be open only up to a point. What a shame. Autonova (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Perfect example of how to not get the article "fixed". Insult editors, accuse them of obstruction and offer zero reliable references. Maybe Wikipedia is not the best playground for you?--MONGO (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I, also, was going to ask: where are the actual reliable sources? — but it just seemed too ranty for me to bother. El_C 13:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

So why isn't there mention of a judge awarding $1 million to Bonacci due to King's abuse? Source [1] Autonova (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would that be in here. It was not related to a sex ring, only to the court decision against King himself.--MONGO (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The judge explicitly mentions the allegations of scavenging for other children to be a part of a pornography ring, and the participation of King and others in “masochistic orgies with other minor children”, and that “the defendant King’s default has made the allegations true as to him”. Seeing as the article is concerned with allegations of King being involved in a child sex ring, this is clearly relevant information from a reliable source and needs mentioning in the article. Autonova (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The is a difference between criminal and civil findings. The case you speak of is civil, not criminal.--MONGO (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

We're allowed to mention civil law action on Wikipedia. For example, this featured article mentions a civil lawsuit. Autonova (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Without a reliable source there's nothing to discuss. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

See above. Autonova (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If it's the one on scribd, that's not reliable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There’s also Executive Intelligence Review Volume 26, Number 12, March 19, 1999. Autonova (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You mean starting at page 65 in this Larouche rag? I quote from that piece "Paul Bonacci was a victim of the Monarch project, one of whose headquarters was in the bunkers of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha. In written depositions and in hours upon hours of videotaped testimony—during which several of his personalities clearly emerge—Bonacci has provided the most detailed account of the Monarch project ever to see the light of day." Really...--MONGO (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

For further context, read this full article.--MONGO (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. How about The Des Moines Register newspaper, 24th February 1999? Or The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes by Michael Newton [2]? Or The Franklin Scandal by Nick Bryant [3]? Or Robert Dorr, Omaha World-Herald newspaper, "King release to close book on Franklin" Jan 28, 2001? Autonova (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

All conspiracy theories or not related. Do you have any reliable references to back up the argument? I mean "Monarch project"? I can't tell who the better hoaxers are, the kids that conjured up these preposterous tales or the grifters/writers that have capitalized on perpetuating these ridiculous claims.--MONGO (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. This is about Paul Bonacci being awarded $1 million by a district judge due to Larry King's actions. There are reliable sources which explicitly state this fact and they should be added to the article. Autonova (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Which you have provided zero.--MONGO (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

To reiterate: The Des Moines Register newspaper, 24th February 1999? Or The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes by Michael Newton [4]? Or The Franklin Scandal by Nick Bryant [5]? Or Robert Dorr, Omaha World-Herald newspaper, "King release to close book on Franklin" Jan 28, 2001? Autonova (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The $1 million judgment was a default judgment taken when King didn't bother to defend against Bonacci's civil lawsuit claiming that between 1980 and 1988, King sexually molested Bonacci and forced him to be part of secret underground pedophile ring involving satanic ritual abuse. Default judgments are technical in that if you don't bother to respond to the complaint filed by the plaintiff, then the judge rules in the plaintiff's favor. No actual civil trial took place in which evidence would have been presented and the merits of the claims tested. Editors can entertain arguments over whether or not to include the fact that Bonacci got a default judgment when King didn't respond to the one-sided lawsuit, but it seems trivial when understood in its proper context and juxtaposed against the fact that the state and federal investigations and grand jury proceedings that did test the merits of the allegations concluded these events did not happen and that the child sex abuse allegations were a hoax. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The ideas were tested in court by the judge. The judge ruled that “the uncontradicted evidence is that the plaintiff has suffered much [...] by the wrongful actions of the defendant King”. $1 million was awarded to Bonacci. The fact that King never appeared in court does not invalidate this information or imply that it should be censored. This is public information backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored. Autonova (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Seriously if that was truly how things worked then I could accuse anyone of anything, with no evidence, and if they don’t show up in court then they’d have to pay me money. The evidence was tested in court by the judge. Autonova (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That's correct, if someone files a civil legal complaint alleging you committed various torts against them, and you never bother to file a response to their petition, then the judge will order a default judgment against you and in the petitioner's favor presuming that the alleged facts are true. The merits of your case are never actually addressed. No trial, no witnesses, no testimony, no evidence tested in court. And yes, you still have to pay the money. That's what happened in the Bonacci - King case. I assume you don't have a legal background, hence you probably didn't realize this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I tried three times to type what you just did as succinctly as that but failed miserably each time.--MONGO (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No. That is not the case. “If a defendant (the person or business sued) doesn't appear at trial, the plaintiff will likely win—but not always. The judge will verify that the plaintiff served the defendant with court papers, that neither party requested a postponement, and that there is some basis (evidence) supporting the plaintiff’s case before issuing a default judgment.” There needs to be evidence. Otherwise, like I said, anyone could win damages from anyone else with zero evidence. Why don’t we include all this information in the article? That Bonacci won after King failed to turn up in court? Autonova (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Moreover the judge makes specific reference to the evidence presented. “The uncontradicted evidence is that...” Autonova (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There are reliable sources though

http://www.guilfordpress.co.uk/books/details/9780415718073/

http://franklinscandal.com/Bryant_DID_Chapter.pdf Futurefirst (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Autonova, you do understand the civil judgement was a default judgement which the judge had to issue due to the way the law is set up?--MONGO (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Autonova, let me try to provide additional understanding for you. When a petitioner files a complaint, they are required to provide a basis in the form of their sworn affidavit which must accompany the complaint. The affidavit is notarized, states the facts as alleged by the petitioner, and in it the petitioner swears that those facts are true. A defendant must file a timely written response to the complaint denying each and every allegation by the petitioner line-by-line within 30 days, or the court must presume that each and every fact alleged by the petitioner is true and enter a default judgment for the petitioner on the basis of the sworn affidavit. The "uncontradicted evidence" the judge was referring to was the required sworn affidavit filed by Bonacci along with his complaint; the affidavit is evidence and supplies the legal basis. The judge was not referring to the kind of compelling evidence you would expect to be presented at a trial with direct and cross examination of the testimony of witnesses, exhibits containing records and/or physical evidence, and so forth. There was no adversarial trial in the Bonacci - King case to ascertain the real truths and facts, just a one-sided default judgment based on original complaint and its legal basis in the supporting sworn affidavit. Does that help clear up any remaining confusion? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

According to The Franklin Scandal by Nick Bryant, [6], "US District Court Judge Urborn declared Bonacci's accusations as "bizarre". He granted Bonacci a default judgement against King. Senator DeCamp then requested a hearing on the single issue of damages, and called Bonacci to the stand along with other witnesses who corroborated his bizarre accusations. After Judge Urborn listened to the testimony, he awarded Paul Bonacci a one million dollar judgement. The ruling was based on some of the horrific events Bonacci related to me. "I don't think the judge would have given Paul a million dollar award if he didn't think he was telling the truth", DeCamp said of the ruling." So the judgement was not solely based on the complaint - it was also based on testimony from witnesses. Autonova (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Would I be allowed to add any information whatsoever from the books The Franklin Scandal by Nick Bryant, [7], or The Franklin Coverup by John DeCamp, or are these censored too? Yes/no? Autonova (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think some text taken from Bryant and supported by Charles Young's "Still Evil After All These Years" would be a good addition to the article. Tell the reader that some prominent people think the pedophile ring was not a complete fabrication or conspiracy theory. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What prominent people? A jury called it a carefully crafted hoax. There has never been anything but conspiracy theories surrounding this nonsense and only those uneducated in the facts of the case would think this preposterous fable has any element of truth. Maybe you need to refresh yourself on the BLP issues here.--MONGO (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The article as it now is accurately summarizes the reliable sources. The article does not use unreliable sources; it doesn't pick and choose facts to synthesize claims that don't appear in reliable sources; it does not, and cannot, blow the lid off a heinous conspiracy of mind control and child abuse, and it cannot give undue weight to fringe claims or violate WP:BLP. Within those limits, what is it you want to add to the article and what is the source? Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It does not accurately summarise all the reliable sources. There are reliable sources which state that investigators received death threats. Journalists were being followed. The lead investigator was killed in a plane crash when bringing back evidence, the cause of which was never found. That the FBI pressured the victims to recant their stories. That King dropped his appeal of the $1 million he was ordered to pay Bonacci for child abuse and involvement in a paedophilia ring. A viewer phone-in poll by Omaha television station KETV channel 7 showed a 10-1 viewer dissatisfaction of the grand jury’s report, with over 3000 responses. That Alisha Owen successfully appealed her conviction of perjury. All this information is left out of the article. Autonova (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That you're dismissing two reliable sources as a "preposterous fable" without bothering to provide so much as a single objective reason is why this article is viewed as biased. You're clearly censoring information which isn't part of a pre-conceived agenda. There is such a wealth of documented information about this case outside the content of the article as it stands. It worries me how someone supposedly contributing openly and faithfully to Wikipedia would be so obstructive. Can you give a single reason why Nick Bryant's book, or the Counterpunch article provided above should not be cited in the article? Autonova (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Circled back here to read the latest after having been gone for four days, but I see not much else has come of this thread. In general, I don't think editors will be very supportive of trying to include these sorts of things as they look to be an attempt to synthesize some kind of conspiratorial minded argument that the child prostitution ring was actually real and that justice has somehow been thwarted despite the state and federal law enforcement investigations and court proceedings that found the claims were a hoax. Obviously some people have written some books about it still claiming such, but the sourcing looks like fringe viewpoints which lack credibility in the mainstream. Wikipedia articles aren't really meant to be the kind of place where these kinds of claims get aired out. However, in the list you've provided above, if Alisha Owen successfully appealed her conviction for perjury, then it does warrant adjusting the article to change or remove what is currently stated in the last few sentences of the "State and federal investigations" section. Can you provide us with a source to confirm that her conviction was indeed thrown out? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the need for proper weight and the avoidance of WP:FRINGE. However, there is a wealth of reliable material that is not included in this article. Similar material is included in the article for Marc Dutroux. In this article, there is omission of material from: a book by a journlist who investigated the case for 9 years [8]; an article in a reliable news outlet endorsing the book [9]; a book by a state senator who was an attourney in the case [10]; a documentary, Who Took Johnny [11]; a documentary, "Conspiracy of Silence", by Yorkshire Television [12]; the fact that Bonacci won civil damages from King after the district court judge heard corroborating testimony, where he decided on a $1 million amount; a viewer phone-in poll by Omaha television station KETV channel 7 which showed a 10-1 viewer dissatisfaction of the grand jury’s report, with over 3000 responses; Episode 5 of the podcast Sword and Scale [13]. Is there any possibility that any of this material could be added to the article? Autonova (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

In response to the Alisha Owen question, my mistake - she was in fact freed on parole after only 4.5 years due to exemplary behaviour. This material should also be added to the article, per BLP. Autonova (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I assume the "similar material " in the Marc Dutrox article is the "Allegations of a cover-up" section in that article, as that is where you linked to. However, that content appears to be about 10% of that article, which handles its overall subject much more in-depth than the small summary article we have here. For proper weight purposes, inserting the items above would unbalance the Franklin article in favor of poorly sourced material arguing (or at least insinuating) the fringe claim that the Franklin child sex ring was real and just covered up. I say poorly sourced because there doesn't appear to be reliable secondary sourcing discussing these items in context. It's Wikipedia policy to avoid creating article content that is synthesized claims using primary sources. Looking at the items above, I could see adding a single sentence to the "Commentary" section of this article stating that some authors have written paperbacks alleging that the child prostitution ring hoax was a real criminal conspiracy covered up by the authorities, but that's about it. On the Owen's situation, lets get a source so that we can add that. Do you have something indicating she was released early for good behavior? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, without preconceptions, never having encountered this topic before, I searched for reliable sources. I found nothing I would feel comfortable adding. Self-published material by Ted Gunderson endorsing the conspiracy - as he did the McMartin satanic abuse nonsense - doesn't give me a good feeling about it.

We're talking here about allegations of satanic abuse against real people. We have to be really careful about undue weight, and I find pretty much nothing beyond dismissive mentions of DeCamp's book in obituaries. When a major TV company makes a documentary and then doesn't release it, that indicates a substantial problem with the underlying facts, and I think we should not be amplifying those claims without massively better sourcing than we have.

In short: the Franklin suppression conspiracy theory is obviously bollocks, but it's not notable bollocks, so we can't cover it. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

MONGO why do you evidently disagree with AzureCitizen that one sentence of sourced material can be added at the bottom of the article? Do you have any alternative ideas in the interest of consensus? Autonova (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The article already says "Numerous conspiracy theories evolved, claiming that the alleged abuse was part of a widespread series of crimes including devil worship, cannibalism, drug trafficking, and CIA arms dealing." That's appropriate weight. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

And the Manchurian Candidate things that were done at Offutt AFB too...--MONGO (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I at least add the sources to that statement? Autonova (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

They all seem pretty much primary sources to me.--MONGO (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

All apart from the book by DeCamp are secondary sources. "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." There is an article from a reliable source, a book written by a journalist, a podcast, and a documentary. All of which are not directly involved in the event. DeCamp was a lawyer involved in the event so his book could be considered a primary source - but it's still relevant to the statement because the statement is not an interpretation of primary sources, just an acknowledgement of them. Autonova (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Autonova, the problem as I see it is the advancement of tiny minority views. Bryant's book is published by TrineDay, "a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish more repressed titles." That's a massive red flag for fringe advocacy and credulous editorial oversight. Still Evil After All These Years is in Counterpunch, which is a "biased or opinionated source" and not reliable for these claims. DeCamp is scarcely a disinterested party. Who Took Johnny was produced by RumuR, a small company specialising in conspiracist nonsense. Conspiracy Of Silence is unreleased, which implies that lawyers were unable to sign off on its allegations. The books appear to be primary sources for the conspiracy theories, they are proponents, not documenters.

What's lacking here, and what I can't find, is any analysis of the conspiracy theories beyond the primary documents. Per [14], "The DeCamp story is linked from a Wikipedia article and has shown up on sites that discuss the Franklin Credit Union scandal. He's seen on various YouTube interviews." "Still, the Franklin stories live on, on various internet sites, and mentioned surreptitiously on occasion on TV shows."

It's abundantly clear that this is not taken seriously in mainstream media, and it is absolutely not our job to fix that. In fact we are forbidden from doing so. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)