Unsolved Girls that went missing from Adelaide Oval 1973

[Kurve]

Of interest.
- Arthur Brown - The Beaumont Children

 

[jason_recliner]

I'm not familiar with the area, if you or someone else is, where's the nearest road a car could have swung in and picked them up once they left the grounds?

At 11yo Joanne's approaching high school, while he would have started running out of puff real fast she wouldn't and after a couple of minutes her mind would be ticking over developing some kind of plan and make a decision. With the courage to fight him, she has the voice to alert someone.

I'm sticking with it that they weren't on foot for 90 minutes, not even half an hour ... maybe but not much longer than that.

Walked, ridden and driven those routes literally hundreds of times. Could stop and pick up on any of the streets through North Adelaide. Most of them are quiet streets, little traffic. But because they are quiet, North Adelaide is medium density, people might hear kids crying/yelling. Parklands are quiet, can't stop on most of the roads through them, flat and sparsely vegetated, easily seen from quite a distance. Prospect easy to stop, less densely populated, but a long walk.

 

[Kurve]

In Nov, I posted that Stanley Hart had charges for sexual offences (see 1966 Govt Gazette listing below) but was told there wasn't anything to confirm that he'd ever actually been convicted.

I've (finally) followed up the one set of charges below. He was convicted in July 1966 for six sex offences against an 11 yo girl between Sept 64 and Dec 65. He got sentenced for 3 1/2 years.

His address in court was given as Rowland (now Burbridge) Rd Hilton.

Now that I've gone back and found this well done. Zebo

I wonder if this is where Channel 9 found their copy.

 

[Kurve]

Check out How Long Does it Take to Walk 3.5 KM?
(The 3.5km based on google search of distance from Adelaide Oval to Vine St, Prospect)

Too far imo. I understand the thinking of perhaps taking them through more secluded areas of parklands or along the river but with every minute that passed, the risk to the offender that Joanne takes off to become an excellent living witness, or they run in to someone who realises what's going on and intervenes, keeps rising.

 

[bomberclifford]

Too far imo. I understand the thinking of perhaps taking them through more secluded areas of parklands or along the river but with every minute that passed, the risk to the offender that Joanne takes off to become an excellent living witness, or they run in to someone who realises what's going on and intervenes, keeps rising.

It could be as simple as a car parked on Pennington Tce and he was lucky enough to not be seen.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

It could be as simple as a car parked on Pennington Tce and he was lucky enough to not be seen.

We can't fashion the facts to confirm what is convenient. The facts are the facts. A man carrying a child roughly under his arm wearing a broad QLD style hat and another older girl chasing after hitting cursing isn't a common event. Those that are consistent with it are likely.....the one possible exception being SL sighting which came to light years later and which has been characterised by MSN incorrectly as being same side of river. But that now gets greater credibility by Kilmartin saying they went left. From where did they go left and was that direction opposite to Bonython Park?

 

[Zebo]

Hi Zebo, Thanks but what is the full name and perhaps known history of ‘your’ Frank?

If you're all talking about the Frank Bone who once owned 7 Day St Paradise, then that's Francis Robert Bone b 9/11/34 d 8/1/01

 

[bomberclifford]

We can't fashion the facts to confirm what is convenient. The facts are the facts. A man carrying a child roughly under his arm wearing a broad QLD style hat and another older girl chasing after hitting cursing isn't a common event. Those that are consistent with it are likely.....the one possible exception being SL sighting which came to light years later and which has been characterised by MSN incorrectly as being same side of river. But that now gets greater credibility by Kilmartin saying they went left. From where did they go left and was that direction opposite to Bonython Park?

From where he was seen with the girls outside the oval, (lolly seller/kitten under the car, etc) left could be heading west across the green towards Montefiore Hill, or heading north, which is where Pennington Tce is.

Back then, people going to Adelaide Oval would park their cars under the fig trees in Pennington Gardens. Walking through those parked cars would have provided enough cover for a perpetrator to emerge on the other side and jump into a car parked on the street. This would have taken less than 5mins.

For reference, Bonython Park is south-west of the Oval and a significant walk given the circumstances, but there would be certain routes that would be less visible to main roads and surrounding houses.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Agreed, I tend to put myself in the shoes of the perp and think how I'd imagine someone committing the particular crime would think.
Thats why I think a beeline for the Torrens lower paths makes sense, down out of view within a minute, under King William st to avoid delays with traffic or attention, along the Torrens depression until the cover runs out at Frome rd which happens to be right where Sue Lawrie said they we're.
From here its the back of the zoo which is quiet still today and a waiting car or then parklands either South or North possibly using the olive grove at the end of Melbourne st to get around that part of North Adelaide.

I dont buy the Port rd sighting either.

So effectively you and BomberClifford suggest the Bonython Park sighting wasn't them and that the SL sighting was heading direction for cleanest escape. Ok I hear what you both say. I will try to flesh out more detail of that Bothyton Park sighting to test it more see if there are any holes in it apart from logistics

 

[PenfoldsFan]

So effectively you and BomberClifford suggest the Bonython Park sighting wasn't them and that the SL sighting was heading direction for cleanest escape. Ok I hear what you both say. I will try to flesh out more detail of that Bothyton Park sighting to test it more see if there are any holes in it apart from logistics

If you think about it logically, 90 minutes, the estimated time for the girls to move from their seats to Port rd sighting (if they didn't first head East to Frome Rd/SL sighting) is a long time for an abductor to hang around the general area of the crime(within 2km).
You could be much further away in that time, I know I would.

We now know from accounts of the day that the ground announcer wouldn't announce the missing children straight away, but the abductor, in real time, wouldn't have that benefit so logic says you get as far away as possible in the shortest time incase people come looking straight away.

 

[Kurve]

These images are more current but here's some figs and you can see in the background on the second image, cars parked on an AFL match day. The paving probably wasn't there in 1973.

The Moreton Bay figs were planted in 1867.

 

[Poppy Penny]

Now that I've gone back and found this well done. Zebo

I wonder if this is where Channel 9 found their copy.

From Angry Red Bull
Kirstie as target or both.

A pedophile especially a 56yo (if it's Hart) isn't going to try and make the abduction more difficult than it needs to be. Kirstie is easy. Two is ridiculously hard and brings unwanted attention on the abduction..I suspect he was unaware that Joanne had the duty to look after Kirstie and also that she would abide her duty so thoroughly. It ended up causing major trouble for the abductor.

Conclusion: Kirstie alone as target

Following on From Zebo post
With Hart’s conviction in 1965 for offences a 11 year old girl, it makes me wonder who was Hart’s original target? I guess it is a mute point considering both girls were taken on that fateful day

 

[Angry Red Bull]

From Angry Red Bull
Kirstie as target or both.

A pedophile especially a 56yo (if it's Hart) isn't going to try and make the abduction more difficult than it needs to be. Kirstie is easy. Two is ridiculously hard and brings unwanted attention on the abduction..I suspect he was unaware that Joanne had the duty to look after Kirstie and also that she would abide her duty so thoroughly. It ended up causing major trouble for the abductor.

Conclusion: Kirstie alone as target

Following on From Zebo post
With Hart’s conviction in 1965 for offences a 11 year old girl, it makes me wonder who was Hart’s original target? I guess it is a mute point considering both girls were taken on that fateful day

It's not a mute point at all. Identifying who was target is extremely important because it helps to profile the perp. Sometimes pedophile offending and target is very rigid and limited to gender and specific ages. Other times it can tend to be a little more fluid. That's what I've read. If he received convictions for an older age girl then that means it was possible even likely these girls are included within his target range. Yes he did abduct both in the end. Was that his intention or was he forced into that outcome by Joanne's reaction? Did he tell Joanne to p*ss off in the exact hope she'd do what she ultimately did? P*ss off usually means p*ss off..For it to mean 'please come and save Kirstie and jeopardize yourself' is less likely because the task with two became infinitely more difficult.

I'd love to have MC verification of SH crimes. If that BL assertion is correct that he abducted two girls around 5 yo from a another football game that is extremely persuasive for this age group and therefore Kirstie being the target. We don't have MC input. Assuming that reporting to be correct, I'm more inclined to suggest that p*ss off actually meant p*ss off I only want Kirstie but I accept that isn't definitive because ultimately both were taken as we know.

 

[Kurve]

It's not a mute point at all. Identifying who was target is extremely important because it helps to profile the perp. Sometimes pedophile offending and target is very rigid and limited to gender and specific ages. Other times it can tend to be a little more fluid. That's what I've read. If he received convictions for an older age girl then that means it was possible even likely these girls are included within his target range. Yes he did abduct both in the end. Was that his intention or was he forced into that outcome by Joanne's reaction? Did he tell Joanne to p*ss off in the exact hope she'd do what she ultimately did? P*ss off usually means p*ss off..For it to mean 'please come and save Kirstie and jeopardize yourself' is less likely because the task with two became infinitely more difficult.

If Joanne wasn't a target and she'd run for help, the risk for him escalated dramatically with pretty good odds he wasn't going to get that far before someone was chasing him down. Any advantage in time he may have had with the family preoccupied watching the footy and unaware, significantly reduced with Joanne left behind.

As what we now know of his record which is confirmed as fact by Zebo and as Poppy Penny referred to, Hart's criminal history involved an 11 year old girl. The same age as Joanne.

At the time the girls were taken, Hart had done time with more experience and imo probably didn't want to go back again. If it was him, imo he wouldn't have left Joanne behind to raise the alarm but she may have actually been the target.

I'd love to have MC verification of SH crimes. If that BL assertion is correct that he abducted two girls around 5 yo from a another football game that is extremely persuasive for this age group and therefore Kirstie being the target. We don't have MC input.

Someone else was apparently convicted for the 5yo's abductions. It would be a real struggle imo to get Major Crimes to even look at it with the view it may have been Hart.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

If you have a source for Hart not being responsible for the 5yos sexual abuse I ask that you share that report. A pedophile's targets are extremely important to profiling the perp. So his mention as being responsible is critical. So too is behaviour indicative of murder (ie staving his wife to death). I recently looked at a study that sought to distinguish pedophiles from child killing pedophiles. There is a clear distinction. That study identified prevalence of psychopathy or sociopathy in offenders as a characteristic to identify them as child killers. I've already looked at the behaviour of both BC and AO perp and suggested a number of traits potentially indicative of sociopathic behaviour. But even with Kilmartin's recent witness testimony about Hart I remain unconvinced it was him. Eyeglasses when we have no evidence Hart had short sightedness. A broad brim QLD style hat. Traits to kill. A stoop.

Taking a child any child is inherently risky. It's risky the remaining child may set off alarm. It's equally risky if she tags along. I simply am unconvinced that a pedophile would seek to use Kirstie as bait to attract the real target Joanne. If he has no other offending apart from that age group then it becomes persuasive. Absent that the obvious answer to me is that he took the child he wanted which was Kirstie

 

[johnymac1]

I guess with the AO case, there are a number of sightings that indicate a general direction of travel.
With the BC disappearance there is no indication of how and where they left the Bay precinct.
I know they are totally different MO's, but there were more people in the Bay area. You would expect more
positive sightings.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I guess with the AO case, there are a number of sightings that indicate a general direction of travel.
With the BC disappearance there is no indication of how and where they left the Bay precinct.
I know they are totally different MO's, but there were more people in the Bay area. You would expect more
positive sightings.

I get the impression with B C case they tried to corroborate sightings to move the kids along the steps in the day and if they didn't have separate corroboration they didn't accept it. That meant they never moved off the reserve area.

Ray Kelly when there for the one day sought to determine veracity of of each individual sightings especially late in the day because that becomes last sighting even though not corroborated. That is how that lady's sighting late in day at 3pm man with crazy walk became relevant..Inexperience of local police imo not knowing how to deal with massive load of reported sightings.

 

[johnymac1]

Opportunistic v planned

* the distance travelled after the snatch suggests opportunistic. It has been repeatedly pointed out by several there are quiet secluded locations within 20
mins walk yet that wasn't what he chose.

* the fact it was Kirstie's first unplanned trip with grandmother suggests opportunistic

* the fact that Frank Bone left his seat for 30 mins earlier in day is suspicious. Likewise his disobeying a Summons

* testimony that the man who snatched them was watching them sought to engage in enticing a cat and came out suddenly from behind a tree while being seen

Conclusion: opportunistic abduction but hastily planned on the day by which stage he was committed to carry for longer than one would with adequate planning

Individual v ring

* Bone known to Hart seated with families
*Smythe known to Hart had his kids playing with J&K
* Bone gone missing for 30 minutes earlier

Conclusion:
Both are possible..if he did it as individual there were several who had prior knowledge. It's likely that the fact K was with the grandmother this time was a motivation to abduct her. That information seeped back to Hart from multiple sources imo.

Kirstie as target or both.

A pedophile especially a 56yo (if it's Hart) isn't going to try and make the abduction more difficult than it needs to be. Kirstie is easy. Two is ridiculously hard and brings unwanted attention on the abduction..I suspect he was unaware that Joanne had the duty to look after Kirstie and also that she would abide her duty so thoroughly. It ended up causing major trouble for the abductor.

Conclusion: Kirstie alone as target

Hart or another

A major factor in this is whether you think it feasible that a 56 year could do it. Was he strong enough. There were a number of reports..some described him as the dad. SL described him as the grandad..The suspects age was 40 yo. Radan was 34. Brown was 61 though was said he was very fit and young looking

The abductor had to carry a 15kg young girl under his arm for 90 minutes at least. if you read all the reports about Joanne it's often said she was hitting him, cursing him and more often than not chasing behind him. She was a nuisance to him no doubt but it was unlikely that it was equivalent to dragging two kids for 90 minutes. The picture of Hart doesn't suggest he is strong. Thin yes. Wiry yes. But strong no.

Undecided If he could have done it for 90 min.

Addendum: For the Bonython park sighting to be wrong you would have to conclude that a Child daughter would be attacking the parent, hitting them and cursing them one under arm one following. Ie both in trouble. No sorry. Very unlikely imo. The motorist was so taken aback he stopped and thought of intervening. Very unlikely to have same incident same types of girls doing the same disobedience father wearing same QLD hat.. Indeed a father back in 73 would have just smacked the child and quickly brought it to a halt. I don't for one second think they would have taken to a train.

I've always thought it was an opportunist snatching, by an unknown offender. He was not necessary there to view the football, but just wondered in off the street. I would suggest he had a habit of wondering through the city and loitered around parks and toilets. In some FB groups there is a lady saying she was approached by a man fitting the description. This was in the years leading up to the AO Kidnapping. My reckoning was that he lived within 4km of the CBD and didn't have a car.
I do agree, there are some Red flags with Hart. Could have played a part. but I reckon he would've had a better getaway plan.

 

[Kurve]

Ray Kelly when there for the one day sought to determine veracity of of each individual sightings especially late in the day because that becomes last sighting even though not corroborated. That is how that lady's sighting late in day at 3pm man with crazy walk became relevant..Inexperience of local police imo not knowing how to deal with massive load of reported sightings

Are you thinking of the Beaumont children in relation to Ray Kelly's involvement and the eyewitness description of a man with a 'crazy walk'?

 

[Kurve]

If you have a source for Hart not being responsible for the 5yos sexual abuse I ask that you share that report.

 

[emuboy]

Are you thinking of the Beaumont children in relation to Ray Kelly's involvement and the eyewitness description of a man with a 'crazy walk'?

With regards to the 'crazy walk' descriptions, did anyone ever check whether any of the potential suspects had some sort of injury from serving in either World War 2 or the Korean War, some other type of accident to the leg or back in civilian life, or had polio when they were younger?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Are you thinking of the Beaumont children in relation to Ray Kelly's involvement and the eyewitness description of a man with a 'crazy walk'?

Yes ray Kelly was BC case. I tend to treat them synonymously as almost identical identakit AND SAPOL have long joined them

 

[Angry Red Bull]

With regards to the 'crazy walk' descriptions, did anyone ever check whether any of the potential suspects had some sort of injury from serving in either World War 2 or the Korean War, some other type of accident to the leg or back in civilian life, or had polio when they were younger?

I tried to find war service injuries but was unsuccessful

 

[Angry Red Bull]

View attachment 1792949

If the article is correct it implies that it was wrongful conviction and that Hart was indeed responsible. I would say under those circumstances you'd have to consider him as possibly the perp still. Certainly doesn't exclude him on that information..

 

[Kurve]

If the article is correct it implies that it was wrongful conviction and that Hart was indeed responsible. I would say under those circumstances you'd have to consider him as possibly the perp still. Certainly doesn't exclude him on that information..

As a hard fact, it absolutely rules Hart out for the abductions of two 5yo's, one who got away and sent up the alarm. Hard fact is Hart was convicted and did time for crimes against an 11yo.

It's a bit tortuous trying to cut through all the noise around this and make any sense out of it. I'm seeing similarities now with how the case against the also deceased Max McIntyre, as involved in the Beaumont children's disappearance was pushed. Commentators now wading in to accuse Major Crimes of not doing enough and accusations of a cover up.

I'd be very interested to see a transcript of Hart's mention in Parliament when an MP raised questions and if it's on a record anywhere that his wife only weighed 11kg or 22 pounds when she died.

It does look like Hart's a good fit though.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I don't know the case. It has a convicted person. The victim however believes the perp was Hart and conviction wrong. In determining offending profile I'd be inclined to therefore include him as targeting this category of victim still until proven otherwise

Your choice for what you do. I'm unconvinced he targets only older girls based on that victim comment and his choice to abduct Kirstie