What evidence linked prominent Nebraska figures to the Franklin allegations?
Executive summary
The Franklin allegations centered on Lawrence E. “Larry” King Jr., manager of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union, accused in 1988–90 of hosting “lavish parties” where minors were sexually abused; the credit union raid found millions missing and spawned a legislative Franklin Committee investigation [1] [2]. Allegations and later books (notably John DeCamp’s) named other prominent Nebraska and national figures and suggested a broad cover-up, while a 1990 Douglas County grand jury concluded the abuse claims were baseless and called them a “carefully crafted hoax” [1] [3].
1. The central figure: Larry King and financial irregularities
Investigations of Franklin began as a financial probe: federal raids on the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union uncovered large embezzlement — roughly $38–$40 million reported missing — and put the spotlight on manager Lawrence E. King Jr., a rising Republican powerbroker who had funded national convention events [1] [2]. That financial collapse was the proximate cause of the wider allegations tying King’s social circles to sex-abuse claims [2].
2. How prominent names entered the story
The thread from embezzlement to high-level sexual-abuse allegations came via foster-care reports and witnesses alleging children had been abused at parties attended by elites; John DeCamp’s “DeCamp memo” and later book publicly named alleged high-ranking abusers and framed King as a nexus connecting Omaha elites to Washington figures [2] [3]. Authors and activists asserting broader conspiracies emphasized King’s political ties and corporate backers to explain why prominent names surfaced [3].
3. Investigations, committee work and a private investigator’s death
Nebraska’s Legislature created the Franklin Committee in late 1988, chaired by state senator Loran Schmit with Ernie Chambers as vice-chair, and hired private investigator Gary Caradori to follow leads — Caradori later died in a 1990 plane crash that fueled suspicion among some committee members though foul play was not proven by investigators [1] [2] [4]. The committee’s work and Caradori’s role are central to claims that reporting and official probes either missed or suppressed evidence [1] [4].
4. The grand jury finding and legal outcomes
A Douglas County grand jury in July 1990 reviewed the allegations and concluded they were unfounded, describing them as a “carefully crafted hoax” and indicting two original accusers for perjury; the grand jury suggested the stories may have originated with a fired Boys Town employee but did not name a definitive source [1]. That official legal finding stands as the most significant formal rebuke to allegations implicating Nebraska’s elite [1].
5. Competing narratives: cover-up claims versus official repudiation
Authors like John DeCamp and later writers (and audiobook treatments) argue a cover-up protected high-level figures and that official inquiries were incomplete or compromised; DeCamp’s book alleges extensive wrongdoing and names alleged abusers [3] [5]. Official channels — law enforcement investigations and the Douglas County grand jury — reached the opposite conclusion, with the grand jury explicitly calling the abuse claims a hoax [1]. Both narratives rely on overlapping factual anchors (King’s role, missing funds, committee activity), but they interpret gaps and disputed evidence in opposite directions [1] [3].
6. Evidence quality and public perception
Available reporting emphasizes that the most concrete documented facts are the credit-union embezzlement, King’s political prominence, the legislature’s committee and the grand jury’s rejection of the abuse claims; broader allegations (ritual murder, nationwide trafficking, cannibalism) appear primarily in advocacy books and later recapitulations rather than in court findings or law-enforcement conclusions cited here [1] [3] [6]. Sources differ sharply on credibility: investigative books promote hidden-evidence narratives while official records reported to the legislature and the grand jury do not support those extreme claims [1] [3].
7. What remains unresolved and limitations of reporting
Available sources do not provide forensic proof in the public record tying named, verifiable Nebraska political or business leaders to proven criminal acts beyond the financial fraud at Franklin [1] [2]. The record shows disputed witness reports, a contentious legislative inquiry, secondary-source books alleging broader conspiracies, and a grand jury that ruled the abuse stories were fabricated [1] [3]. Researchers should note that books and audiobooks advancing the cover-up thesis rely on testimony and documents that critics say are uncorroborated; official inquiries reported in these sources reached different conclusions [3] [1].
Bottom line: the strongest documented links in the contemporaneous public record tie Lawrence King to the Franklin financial scandal and to allegations reported to the Legislature; assertions connecting a wide cast of prominent Nebraskans to proven child-abuse crimes rest mainly in investigative books and contested testimony, while a Douglas County grand jury found the abuse allegations baseless [2] [3] [1].