Unsolved The Beaumont Children

[Kurve]

Watch what Andrew said about AM and the Sinkhole around the 25 minute mark...you can say sorry you were wrong if you like!

PART TWO -EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY ON THE BEAUMONT CHILDREN (ANDREW MCINTYRE TESTIMONY)​

Not sure you're going to get many 'sorry's' in here regards Andrew McIntyre's testimony on the Beaumont children but are you referring to the ITNJ - The International Tribunal for Natural Justice video?

There's a thread here:

International Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Human Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse

The International Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Human Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse IS NOT THE HAGUE. Untested and unsanctioned witness testimony of Rachel Vaughan and Andrew McIntyre hosted by the ITNJ. Rachel alleges abuse by her father, Allan Maxwell McIntyre (Max McIntyre) while...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[newbie11]

What are you talking about??
AM has made a statement and also Stuart Mullins has had extensive reporting and investigation on HP. If you look at his latest video on You Tube he comes up with some pretty damming information that points the finger at Phipps and "Others" that were likely involved eg AM and MM but he didn't mention those names. He also Mentions a dummy grave a Red Herring hole dug to make others think of that location instead of somewhere else.
Haydon Phipps said they are digging in the wrong place and they are in the Sand pit at the other end of the Factory. I have looked at Ariel photos over the past decade or so and it would seem the sand pit has been replaced by a huge tree. Kind of suspicious in the middle of an industrial site!
And it has been found out that Phipps Mcintyre and Munro were all associates around the time of the kidnapping.
So my guess is they are at either The Sand pit area or the sinkhole take your pick!
So now before you go shooting your mouth off do some research...Door Handle!!

No worries, so.. people were digging ‘red herring’ graves in 1966 because they were time-travellers and knew that such things as Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) were going to exist in the future. Is that correct? Because otherwise, I mean, like; what would even be the point right? In theory- you just dig a hole- you fill in the hole- eventually the ground goes back to looking like ‘normal’ - Ta Da; never a grave there. Looks no different to any other normal ground.

So what was the thought process behind the digging of the ‘red herring’ hole again?

Oh , wait.. I think I may know the answer to this one; because they wanted to intentionally make themselves look suspicious? For no apparent reason.

What your suggesting is (sorry for the language, I do apologise, but it needs to be said) .. is bullshit!

Plain and simple. Because everything that your saying makes no sense when you think about the past tense as the present tense that all these things supposedly took place in, it’s a bunch a blatant lies that your making up as you go along to fit in with the facts. (Not that you haven’t been trying to also change those either; “it’s a well known fact serial killers bury on their property” well, you made that one up.

Cut the nonsense!

Why would Max be ‘white as a ghost’ because 3 children had been killed?

Doesn’t make a great deal of sense, does it?

If a person literally has the blood drain from their face from simply seeing a dead body, that’s not the kind of person that you then typically expect to be fine with dissecting, dismembering and desecrating the remains of bodies -handing these pieces to Andrew, entrusting him with the task of body disposal.

 

[newbie11]

Watch what Andrew said about AM and the Sinkhole around the 25 minute mark...you can say sorry you were wrong if you like!

PART TWO -EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY ON THE BEAUMONT CHILDREN (ANDREW MCINTYRE TESTIMONY)​

I’m no longer interested.

 

[newbie11]

Watch what Andrew said about AM and the Sinkhole around the 25 minute mark...you can say sorry you were wrong if you like!

PART TWO -EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY ON THE BEAUMONT CHILDREN (ANDREW MCINTYRE TESTIMONY)​

Do you understand how a witness statement works?

The witness gives their full and true statement, that’s it. The end.

The McIntyre’s have continued to roll out an entire series of appropriately vitriolic videos, each designed to be more heinous, more shocking (or “explosive” rather) than the last.

A person’s witness statement does not have “NEW BOMBSHELL BEAUMONT TESTIMONY SET TO SHOCK THE WORLD”

Witnesses that have “first hand knowledge” do not say things like “I believe that MM was involved” -because what a person believes, that’s a matter of ones opinion, it’s what they think and it’s not what they ‘know’ .. if your a witness, there is a expectation that you don’t just think something, you know something. It might sound like I’m just nitpicking with words here, but those are the sorts of little things that provide a clear insight into what’s really going on inside a persons mind.

AM is a good suspect for the BC case in many ways; he fits the description, he frequented the area, he is a known pedophile.
Pedophile - homicidal serial killer is quiet a big leap particularly if there’s nothing to suggest any escalation in his offending, but still, he needs to be very closely looked at non-the-less.

I guess it’s just too bad if anything was to ever come out of it thou..isn’t it? Clearly the McIntyre’s must be completely oblivious to the greater implications and consequences of their actions.

 

[johnymac1]

What are you talking about??
AM has made a statement and also Stuart Mullins has had extensive reporting and investigation on HP. If you look at his latest video on You Tube he comes up with some pretty damming information that points the finger at Phipps and "Others" that were likely involved eg AM and MM but he didn't mention those names. He also Mentions a dummy grave a Red Herring hole dug to make others think of that location instead of somewhere else.
Haydon Phipps said they are digging in the wrong place and they are in the Sand pit at the other end of the Factory. I have looked at Ariel photos over the past decade or so and it would seem the sand pit has been replaced by a huge tree. Kind of suspicious in the middle of an industrial site!
And it has been found out that Phipps Mcintyre and Munro were all associates around the time of the kidnapping.
So my guess is they are at either The Sand pit area or the sinkhole take your pick!
So now before you go shooting your mouth off do some research...Door Handle!!

In his interview he stated his dad worked for the national security agencies. This is incorrect, because security agencies traditionally recruited tertiary educated people. Max had a below average IQ, Frankly wouldn't have made the grade.

You have try some statement analysis..

 

[newbie11]

In his interview he stated his dad worked for the national security agencies. This is incorrect, because security agencies traditionally recruited tertiary educated people. Max had a below average IQ, Frankly wouldn't have made the grade.

You have try some statement analysis..

So...just to briefly summarise…

I’ve got;

Whistleblowing MK Ultra survivors, who grew up at the hands of a Satanic cult with their free-mason, skull collecting, mass murdering, infant consuming cannibalistic Telecom worker pedo father, who, actually secretly worked for ASIO and ran a couple side gigs; one as a human butcher selling ‘someone’s’ poor beloved missing relative’ that’s now been chopped up and sold for consumption & also worked as a body-boy

Have I missed anything else important?

 

[GreyCrow]

So...just to briefly summarise…

I’ve got;

Whistleblowing MK Ultra survivors, who grew up at the hands of a Satanic cult with their free-mason, skull collecting, mass murdering, infant consuming cannibalistic Telecom worker pedo father, who, actually secretly worked for ASIO and ran a couple side gigs; one as a human butcher selling ‘someone’s’ poor beloved missing relative’ that’s now been chopped up and sold for consumption & also worked as a body-boy

Have I missed anything else important?

Pizzas

 

[handle the truth]

No worries, so.. people were digging ‘red herring’ graves in 1966 because they were time-travellers and knew that such things as Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) were going to exist in the future. Is that correct? Because otherwise, I mean, like; what would even be the point right? In theory- you just dig a hole- you fill in the hole- eventually the ground goes back to looking like ‘normal’ - Ta Da; never a grave there. Looks no different to any other normal ground.

So what was the thought process behind the digging of the ‘red herring’ hole again?

Oh , wait.. I think I may know the answer to this one; because they wanted to intentionally make themselves look suspicious? For no apparent reason.

What your suggesting is (sorry for the language, I do apologise, but it needs to be said) .. is bullshit!

Plain and simple. Because everything that your saying makes no sense when you think about the past tense as the present tense that all these things supposedly took place in, it’s a bunch a blatant lies that your making up as you go along to fit in with the facts. (Not that you haven’t been trying to also change those either; “it’s a well known fact serial killers bury on their property” well, you made that one up.

Cut the nonsense!

Why would Max be ‘white as a ghost’ because 3 children had been killed?

Doesn’t make a great deal of sense, does it?

If a person literally has the blood drain from their face from simply seeing a dead body, that’s not the kind of person that you then typically expect to be fine with dissecting, dismembering and desecrating the remains of bodies -handing these pieces to Andrew, entrusting him with the task of body disposal.

You are only using half of you brain capacity here.
I am not saying it it is what the detectives are saying about the dummy grave not me!
It is clowns like you that do not listen or read correctly!
And Andrew is saying this stuff about the day not me again!
Oh you are really frustrating lol
And think about this maybe MM was upset because the Children were not supposed to be Murdered!
Here you go now your brain capacity has been opened slightly, maybe you should leave it that way lol.

 

[handle the truth]

In his interview he stated his dad worked for the national security agencies. This is incorrect, because security agencies traditionally recruited tertiary educated people. Max had a below average IQ, Frankly wouldn't have made the grade.

You have try some statement analysis..

You say that but how did Colin Monock become the Chief
Forensic Pathologist of SA with no qualifications for the role??
Jobs for the boys they want...and you can not deny this because this is proven fact!
Go check that out!

 

[johnymac1]

So...just to briefly summarise…

I’ve got;

Whistleblowing MK Ultra survivors, who grew up at the hands of a Satanic cult with their free-mason, skull collecting, mass murdering, infant consuming cannibalistic Telecom worker pedo father, who, actually secretly worked for ASIO and ran a couple side gigs; one as a human butcher selling ‘someone’s’ poor beloved missing relative’ that’s now been chopped up and sold for consumption & also worked as a body-boy

Have I missed anything else important?

you forgot
tunnel builder,
and mason,

He didn't count on, one of us being there when they actually knocked down the house, we didn't find any thigh bones sticking out of the ground.
the tunnels in his story would created a large about of building rubble, somehow max slipped that past us, I often stayed around the corner on Castle street (60-70s).
The "K" crown sign on the butchers stood for Kingston SE Beef. everything can be disproven

 

[newbie11]

You are only using half of you brain capacity here.
I am not saying it it is what the detectives are saying about the dummy grave not me!
It is clowns like you that do not listen or read correctly!
And Andrew is saying this stuff about the day not me again!
Oh you are really frustrating lol
And think about this maybe MM was upset because the Children were not supposed to be Murdered!
Here you go now your brain capacity has been opened slightly, maybe you should leave it that way lol.

As a victim of child sexual abuse myself, I certainly take absolutely no pleasure in having to throw another victim(s) under the bus like this.
But here’s the thing; what happens if at some-point in the future that the children do get found and or some evidence does come up that is suggestive enough of AM’s guilt that he can be brought to trial?

Well.. if I’m AM’s defence attorney, do you know what I’m probably going to do? I’m going to turn around to the jury and play every single one of those videos for them to watch. Then, I’m going to completely rip Andrew to shreds in my cross examination of him on the witness stand about all these inconsistencies he’s made publicly - & then, I’m probably going to go on and do the same thing with the witness statements that saw the bodies in the garage.ect..

so unless the prosecution has got some absolutely irrefutable evidence to prove that he did it…he now stands a good chance of just walking on the charges. Bravo advocates, f### bravo - I can’t imagine the McIntyre’s would seriously want to be in a position where they’ve only got themselves to thank for that because let’s get real.. if at the end of the day, they seriously -and I mean, like; hands down, 100%, truely, deadset stand by everything that they’ve said.. then, that^^ that becomes a very real and legitimate possibility, doesn’t it?

“Maybe MM was upset because the children weren’t supposed to be killed that day”?

(Exhales) yeah.. ‘maybe’. Can you please provide me an adequate explanation for this then;

“Back at the McIntyre house that afternoon, the bob-haired girl heard the front door slam as she washed dishes. Her dad had returned home, she said”
"He comes in quite robotic and covered in sand and splattered with blood," Ruth said. A tight, white Coca-Cola promotional shirt that she said she recognized as Mr. Munro's stretched across her father's chest, stained with the deep red substance she would later find coating the trunk of the family car. He headed straight for the bathroom.”

Thank you for opening my mind, speaking with you has just been absolutely enlightening to say the least.
My newly found brain openness would just love to do a full review of the McIntyre statements for you; shall I limit it to just some of the forensic and scientific impossibilities of the things that they have mentioned or would you prefer that I just draw attention to absolutely all of the inconsistency that I find.. up to you?

 

[newbie11]

Anyways; I reckon Rachel should keep perusing the whole; “it was Louise Bell” shenanigans… maybe she’ll be successful in helping to raise enough doubt that she’ll be able to overturn conviction! Keep up the great work Rachel, you keep fighting until you ensure that immediate release of an already convicted child murdering pedophile.

Anyone who doesn’t blindly support her antics or think she should be nominated for an advocate of the year award is an idiot.

Don’t you agree ‘handle the truth’?

 

[DropBearess]

I'm glad this thread has reactivated a bit recently. I appreciate where recent posters are coming from, but l think we're getting log jammed again with Satin and/or M & Ms. Apparently a second book is iminent citing these theories, so there's bound to be an influx of new stuff.

My own theories haven't changed in 55 years, so l'd like to encourage older ideas to re-ignite a balanced discussion. I'm reposting a couple of my older posts, so here we go.....

 

[DropBearess]

This is my first post on this thread. I have followed this case since the day it began and have taken a particular interest in it all my life.

I was born and raised very close to Glenelg and l and my 2 siblings at the time were of similar age to the children. Accompanied by our mother, we frequented the area often and knew the locale very well including bus routes, landmarks, short cuts etc. At this time there was a bus which ran between Port Adelaide and Glenelg, it's primary route being near to the foreshore nearly all the way. When on it's way to the bay, it terminated outside Wenzels. It ran hourly on week days and Australia Day that year was not a public holiday. We caught it frequently and my family had been at "the bay", as we called it, two days earlier. It was incredibly busy with kids everywhere and we bought lunch at Wenzels, as we always did. The queues, crowds and chaos in this shop at lunchtime during school holidays would be unforgettable for South Australians who went there in those days.

As a kid, teenager and young adult, l became almost obsessed at times with trying to discover the fate of the children. I absorbed every scrap of information l could find. I still don't miss much.
But l'm confused in recent years, unless l've somehow missed something. I would like to know when, how and from which source came the information that the children bought enough food and drinks for six people? This seems to now be the basis of so many theories! For at least 30 years, it was reported the children just bought their own lunch, plus a pasty for their mother. I accept that the denomination they allegedly used to pay could have been confused over time, as I believe the police deliberately witheld certain information.

So are we going to believe the children bought multiple lunches or not, and base our theories on this? We need to explore several known facts first, from 1966:-

• There were no white plastic bags then, just brown paper bags. You brought your own string bag if you needed a few things from the shop.
• Pies, pasties and cakes were sold one to a bag, the pies etc. being much bigger than they are now. Mingy shopkeepers would try to squash two in and break them.
• There were absolutely no plastic bottles in 1966. All soft drinks then were in thickened, green tinted glass, with the bottle weighing more than the drink. When l was Jane's age, my six year old brother and l were allowed to walk 400m to the local shop every Friday afternoon to bring home two big bottles of Coke and Woodies in a string bag. They were bloody heavy!
• All bottles in those days required bottle openers.
• The airline bag Jane was carrying had only one over-shoulder handle.

* And another verifiable fact:- the Beaumont children were carrying either on their person or with them 15-17 items before they bought anything.

So picture this. Children enter shop, Jane carrying her bag, probably containing whatever they weren't wearing. They would've had at least one wet towel, although some reports state they had no towels. The kids are served all this food (according to recent reports six p & ps and six buns or something?). So that's six bags if it's just p & ps. Add another six bags if buns are involved = 12 bags. At best if two items in each bag = 6 bags. Then come the soft drinks as described above. So the kids are now grappling with 12 paper bags, minimum 6, plus 2 bloody heavy bottles, armed only with one airways bag and at least one wet towel. How can this be? Grant could have carried very little.
How could three kids grappling with all that food and drink possibly go un-noticed by potential witnesses? If the shop assistant truly remembered serving them, how did she hand it all over to the children and where did they put it? Surely the latter should have been more memorable than other details?
My theory, for what it's worth, is just that the children were served quickly amongst a big crowd and bought their own lunch, which they could carry and had probably half-eaten before they squeezed out of the shop. Or perhaps, just perhaps, they decided to treat themselves to a finger bun each and walk home. The fare and a bun each would've been the same. I think their presence in the shop went almost unnoticed.
I don't believe we should be basing all our theories on one memory in one cake shop, but yes, definitely to eye-witnesses on the reserve. I think we need to accept that. The postie? I'm not sure. And exactly what time did the children catch the bus from home. Was it 8.45 or 10?

• l have met the McIntyres on two occasions in my efforts to delve into this. They are very convincing and seemingly authentic. Goodness knows why they would carp on for so long about this. Who knows?
• Munro, Satin Man? All of them totally sick, but a sudden progression to triple murder after years of successfully and sordidly dabbling in fetishes and abuse? Who knows?
• Police conspiracy? Who knows?
• l would like to know where Derek Percy was at the time. There are allegations he was in Adelaide, staying with his parents in a caravan park. The bus to and from Wenzel's went past West Beach Caravan Park. This bus was always crowded in school holidays and l could never have described anyone on it. Percy had a thing about sand and water. The park was surrounded by sandhills at the time; in fact as children we were forbidden from going there as no-one would hear us if we drowned. Uncannily similar to Wanda Beach.
• l would like to know where Robert Lowe was at the time. Strangely there is a gap between his sordid offences in NZ in 65 and Australia in 69. This physcopath has possibly the greatest propensity of all to commit a crime like this.
• Arthur Brown? The suspect who by far most likely resembles identikits. Who knows?
• And then there is the sordid convicted South Australian murderer of two children, Dieter Pfennig. His name is not suppressed and details of his convictions are freely available.

So my theory is this, for what it's worth, given lots of knowledge of the situations and places on the day. The purchases and subsequent grappling they would have entailed didn't happen or someone would have noticed. The kids just bought their own lunch and a pasty for mum. Maybe they were rascals and bought buns too and decided walk home, or just missed the bus. I think either way, they walked. They just followed the bus route. Grant was just four years old. Before long, he would have cried in the heat and Jane would have looked after him. So from a house comes a friendly man, maybe someone they've met before, maybe not, but probably. "You kids look thirsty, come in for a drink and l think l've got an ice-cream brick. We'll be quick".
All too easy. I think we are over-thinking.
I believe the children were enticed and taken somewhere between Wenzels and their home, and this is where they remain.
Sorry for such a long post, but after 54 years of thought over this mystery, my theory is just the same as it was in 1966.

 

[handle the truth]

You are getting away from the facts!
You don't believe the facts?
And what you said about Jane is correct she was responsible, but if you read some reports of people from the surrounding streets from where the children lived they all said the children would often been seen walking the streets and conversing with people from around the area.
It would seem it was an innocent time where kids were always told to be home before dinner.
I grew up in the 70 s and 80 s and when we got home from school the bags went down and out we went and that was after the Beaumont children went missing, so i can imagine what it was like before. The freedom they must of had at a young age and trust in people to do what is right and obviously someone took advantage of that.
You have gone away from the facts and made up your own story which is farcical with all due respect.

 

[handle the truth]

As a victim of child sexual abuse myself, I certainly take absolutely no pleasure in having to throw another victim(s) under the bus like this.
But here’s the thing; what happens if at some-point in the future that the children do get found and or some evidence does come up that is suggestive enough of AM’s guilt that he can be brought to trial?

Well.. if I’m AM’s defence attorney, do you know what I’m probably going to do? I’m going to turn around to the jury and play every single one of those videos for them to watch. Then, I’m going to completely rip Andrew to shreds in my cross examination of him on the witness stand about all these inconsistencies he’s made publicly - & then, I’m probably going to go on and do the same thing with the witness statements that saw the bodies in the garage.ect..

so unless the prosecution has got some absolutely irrefutable evidence to prove that he did it…he now stands a good chance of just walking on the charges. Bravo advocates, f### bravo - I can’t imagine the McIntyre’s would seriously want to be in a position where they’ve only got themselves to thank for that because let’s get real.. if at the end of the day, they seriously -and I mean, like; hands down, 100%, truely, deadset stand by everything that they’ve said.. then, that^^ that becomes a very real and legitimate possibility, doesn’t it?

“Maybe MM was upset because the children weren’t supposed to be killed that day”?

(Exhales) yeah.. ‘maybe’. Can you please provide me an adequate explanation for this then;

“Back at the McIntyre house that afternoon, the bob-haired girl heard the front door slam as she washed dishes. Her dad had returned home, she said”
"He comes in quite robotic and covered in sand and splattered with blood," Ruth said. A tight, white Coca-Cola promotional shirt that she said she recognized as Mr. Munro's stretched across her father's chest, stained with the deep red substance she would later find coating the trunk of the family car. He headed straight for the bathroom.”

Thank you for opening my mind, speaking with you has just been absolutely enlightening to say the least.
My newly found brain openness would just love to do a full review of the McIntyre statements for you; shall I limit it to just some of the forensic and scientific impossibilities of the things that they have mentioned or would you prefer that I just draw attention to absolutely all of the inconsistency that I find.. up to you?

I am only interested in the facts and the stories of what people have said, and you have to remember they were only children at the time.
The time lines add up though when Hayden seen the children playing in the backyard at 12.30 pm and TM arriving with the children at around 4pm as per Andrews story. What happened in between that time we do not want to know to be honest.
But what we know is they are still missing and we have 2 possible grave sights that have not been looked at, and i say why not?? After all we flew and followed around a Dutch Clairvoyant and dug up factories because of what?? Dreams and visions?? come on...wake up!

 

[handle the truth]

You are getting away from the facts!
You don't believe the facts?
And what you said about Jane is correct she was responsible, but if you read some reports of people from the surrounding streets from where the children lived they all said the children would often been seen walking the streets and conversing with people from around the area.
It would seem it was an innocent time where kids were always told to be home before dinner.
I grew up in the 70 s and 80 s and when we got home from school the bags went down and out we went and that was after the Beaumont children went missing, so i can imagine what it was like before. The freedom they must of had at a young age and trust in people to do what is right and obviously someone took advantage of that.
You have gone away from the facts and made up your own story which is farcical with all due respect.

The Police said they would leave "NO STONE UNTURNED" in finding the Children! Where has that gone? Like i said before they were only Children at the time and the stories are bound to be a little sketchy! I can recall major events in my life when i was 12 but i bet i can be corrected by an adult that was there at the time for the finer details. I am not interested in RV and the Satanic rubbish true or not true it doesn't help find the Children.
I feel bad knowing you suffered from abuse i could not imagine that as i had loving parents that treated me very well. And that is the other thing i could not imagine saying anything bad about my parents and it would seem that AM does and you have to ask yourself why? It can't be because of a loss of will rights, many children have been left out of their parents will and land gain but don't come up with all of this , i mean i could not even dream half of this stuff up!
All i am interested in is finding the children nothing more and nothing less, in my eyes if it means digging a couple of me sites in question in say why not? what do we have to lose?

 

[EyeMedia]

What reason/s, if any, have police given for not doing a dig on the Stansbury property?

 

[handle the truth]

What reason/s, if any, have police given for not doing a dig on the Stansbury property?

As far as i understand the Reason is they do not believe Andrew and Siblings because they were so young at the time.The other reason given as i have been told is they are sick of hearing these stories only to find nothing so they have closed the case!

 

[Quadzilla]

As far as i understand the Reason is they do not believe Andrew and Siblings because they were so young at the time.The other reason given as i have been told is they are sick of hearing these stories only to find nothing so they have closed the case!

The Beaumont case is closed?

 

[GreyCrow]

As far as i understand the Reason is they do not believe Andrew and Siblings because they were so young at the time.The other reason given as i have been told is they are sick of hearing these stories only to find nothing so they have closed the case!

I thought it was because they didn't have permission from the owner

 

[newbie11]

I am only interested in the facts and the stories of what people have said, and you have to remember they were only children at the time.
The time lines add up though when Hayden seen the children playing in the backyard at 12.30 pm and TM arriving with the children at around 4pm as per Andrews story. What happened in between that time we do not want to know to be honest.
But what we know is they are still missing and we have 2 possible grave sights that have not been looked at, and i say why not?? After all we flew and followed around a Dutch Clairvoyant and dug up factories because of what?? Dreams and visions?? come on...wake up!

“I am only interested in the facts”

Yet, your pro McIntyre theory that defies science?

“What happened in between that time we do not want to know to be honest.”

“only interested in the facts “- just not the most fundamentally important ones? . ..whodunnit

I feel like you have already provided yourself with the answer for this one;
“After all we flew and followed around a Dutch Clairvoyant and dug up factories because of what?? Dreams and visions?? come on”

Well faar out, if the cops dug up a factory on the freaking word of a clairvoyant;
what might that suggest about the validity of the McIntyre claims?

That what the McIntyre’s claims are confabulation.

 

[newbie11]

What reason/s, if any, have police given for not doing a dig on the Stansbury property?

That there is no validity to the McIntyre claims.

You should know that, given the claims you previously made yet didn’t come to the table with.
And btw; just so you know - I happened to be online and read your “insensitive” comment before it was deleted.
Your a pot stirrer. Absolutely disgusting what you wrote.

 

[newbie11]

The Police said they would leave "NO STONE UNTURNED" in finding the Children! Where has that gone? Like i said before they were only Children at the time and the stories are bound to be a little sketchy! I can recall major events in my life when i was 12 but i bet i can be corrected by an adult that was there at the time for the finer details. I am not interested in RV and the Satanic rubbish true or not true it doesn't help find the Children.
I feel bad knowing you suffered from abuse i could not imagine that as i had loving parents that treated me very well. And that is the other thing i could not imagine saying anything bad about my parents and it would seem that AM does and you have to ask yourself why? It can't be because of a loss of will rights, many children have been left out of their parents will and land gain but don't come up with all of this , i mean i could not even dream half of this stuff up!
All i am interested in is finding the children nothing more and nothing less, in my eyes if it means digging a couple of me sites in question in say why not? what do we have to lose?

The McIntyre’s are very believable because they are most probably not lying. In my opinion, I firmly believe that they are genuinely telling the ‘truth’, period.

This suggesting possible confabulation.

Individuals suffering from confabulation are not intentionally trying to deceive anyone, they are not aware that their memory is inaccurate. In other words, it’s ‘honest lying’.
I’ll refrain from any debate about the controversial FMS (False Memory Syndrome). It’s not recognised as a psychiatric illness and as far as I’m aware the WHO have no reference ICD-10 ( <fact check, cbf checking soz)

False memories are not a rare phenomenon, they are surprising very common. An individual might have experiences of false memory and not have any underlying mental health issues at all.They also may not have experienced any trauma.

This might be helpful in trying to understand..Interesting fact; It is almost an absolute guarantee that you will have atleast 1 false memory of your own.

Everyone does.

Who knows which memory ( more likely memories) it is that they have actually made up?

 

[newbie11]

The reason the cops won’t search is because their claims lack validity. Do you really think that they wouldn’t investigate?
That they have some vendetta against the McIntyre’s and just won’t listen to them?
The fact that they were children and that’s why is nonsense; was Andrew not a child when he was abused? Who do you think investigated, laid criminal charges and arrested AM?

Facts are not a witness statement that continues to evolve. You don’t evidence, so you have to; Assume nothing - Believe nothing until you have Checked everything.