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

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
4,423
7,293
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond

(Log in to remove this ad.)

shellyg

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
10,326
21,836
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
"Senator Carr said Dr Walsh was also involved in a Victorian Supreme Court action over an insurance company's claim for restitution of $300,000 paid on the basis of sworn affidavits declaring he was unable to work because of disability. "

The shenanigans and rorts on Norfolk Island could almost have it's own thread.
 

shellyg

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
10,326
21,836
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Okay, how about this witnesses's testimony who claims among other things to be a target of remote electronic sexual assault?

Constant sleep disruption continued, then physical assaults began occurring throughout the night which further research led her to conclude that she was being targeted and manipulated by remote electronic weapons. Mariana has regularly experienced what is known as voice to skull technology, where voices, noises, and music are projected into the brain in real time, capable of manipulating perceptions, thoughts, and emotions. The voices are often violent and perverse in nature, at times threatening to inflict cancer and other forms of physical harm upon Mariana and her family, and telling her to commit suicide. Her testimony is supported by documentation including toxicology reports, pictures, and blood analysis reports. Mariana’s body is shown to contain a synthetic form of nano-technology not naturally occurring in humans, and emitting frequencies of which variations can be traced back to Homeland Security, the U.S. military, and other government entities.

 

BlueE

Premiership Player
Oct 12, 2017
3,187
3,805
AFL Club
Fremantle
"Dr John Walsh of Brannagh was found by the Tribunal to have engaged in both unprofessional conduct and unsatisfactory conduct. ..."

What has the South Australian legal conduct commission found that is unprofessional and unsatisfactory? I couldn't find any details, only that both parties had appealed but had been denied. ITNJ make it clear they are based in London and have an international remit with the capacity to take evidence in any part of the world. The ITNJ may take evidence in Melbourne or Sydney or Washington or Johannesburg as many other courts and tribunals do.
 

ThunkaHunka

Senior List
Jun 2, 2019
270
89
AFL Club
Adelaide
Okay, how about this witnesses's testimony who claims among other things to be a target of remote electronic sexual assault?

Constant sleep disruption continued, then physical assaults began occurring throughout the night which further research led her to conclude that she was being targeted and manipulated by remote electronic weapons. Mariana has regularly experienced what is known as voice to skull technology, where voices, noises, and music are projected into the brain in real time, capable of manipulating perceptions, thoughts, and emotions. The voices are often violent and perverse in nature, at times threatening to inflict cancer and other forms of physical harm upon Mariana and her family, and telling her to commit suicide. Her testimony is supported by documentation including toxicology reports, pictures, and blood analysis reports. Mariana’s body is shown to contain a synthetic form of nano-technology not naturally occurring in humans, and emitting frequencies of which variations can be traced back to Homeland Security, the U.S. military, and other government entities.

this kind of thing smacks of limited-hangout cointelpro work

what they will do is take a premise based on a lot of real facts on what the CIA is doing to people,
and then embellish it into absurdity. So that it discredits the reality of what is happening.

OK...so
-phone lines tapped, under surveillance, sure . it checks out as realistic
- intel-people slandering you with both real dirt they find on you and exaggerated or fabricated related info - seems natural they would do it
- scoping out your existing enemies in the area and rallying them against you via same tactics as mentioned
above - only in special cases, but sure. once you are are a target, they would do it.

- targeting your financial means and flagging you for unemployment with anyone under the control of their gigantic control grid- of course it is happening. It is like living in China today, but here. Think same employment crap doesn't go on in China?

- disrupting your sleep with whatever conventional means they have. Keeps you weakened, sick, less credible. seems they would do that.
Like placing harassing neighbors nearby, rallying them against you. Making noise outside etc. It seems they'd do this to the most troublesome highly targeted people.

- intimidating you with online insults, threats , accusations. that is known fact now, its mundane its so common. But with top priority cases, it would extend to physical intimidation, for example having intimidating people await you wherever you are planning or scheduled to be , or your daily route or daily routine. They would plausibly monitor you, disrupt you and intimidate you in this way.

But when they get into 'they are raping me with sex dreams' or 'they are sending voices into my head' etc.
it gets a bit much. Like the stories may be intended to discredit legit cases of harrassment.
 

BlueE

Premiership Player
Oct 12, 2017
3,187
3,805
AFL Club
Fremantle
Okay, how about this witnesses's testimony who claims among other things to be a target of remote electronic sexual assault?

Constant sleep disruption continued, then physical assaults began occurring throughout the night which further research led her to conclude that she was being targeted and manipulated by remote electronic weapons. Mariana has regularly experienced what is known as voice to skull technology, where voices, noises, and music are projected into the brain in real time, capable of manipulating perceptions, thoughts, and emotions. The voices are often violent and perverse in nature, at times threatening to inflict cancer and other forms of physical harm upon Mariana and her family, and telling her to commit suicide. Her testimony is supported by documentation including toxicology reports, pictures, and blood analysis reports. Mariana’s body is shown to contain a synthetic form of nano-technology not naturally occurring in humans, and emitting frequencies of which variations can be traced back to Homeland Security, the U.S. military, and other government entities.

Mariana’s body is shown to contain a synthetic form of nano-technology not naturally occurring in humans, and emitting frequencies of which variations can be traced back to Homeland Security, the U.S. military, and other government entities.

This sort of testimony will take me a while to absorb. She has the physical proof so ...?
 

shellyg

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
10,326
21,836
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Mariana’s body is shown to contain a synthetic form of nano-technology not naturally occurring in humans, and emitting frequencies of which variations can be traced back to Homeland Security, the U.S. military, and other government entities.

This sort of testimony will take me a while to absorb. She has the physical proof so ...?
It could also be nano technology in the form of plastics. We're all full of it. I'm starting to feel sorry for the way these people may be being exploited by this organisation.
 

BlueE

Premiership Player
Oct 12, 2017
3,187
3,805
AFL Club
Fremantle
It could also be nano technology in the form of plastics. We're all full of it. I'm starting to feel sorry for the way these people may be being exploited by this organisation.
I have no idea as I haven't watched this or have heard anything about it. However I think the point is it's not the person being exploited, they want an International platform to bring testimony into mainstream awareness.

Do you think they're exploited because of attacks they might get from the mainstream or shills?
 

Cornelius Roy

Senior List
Nov 18, 2017
277
602
AFL Club
West Coast
From the transcript of Rachel Vaughn's testimony to the International Inquiry into Sexual Abuse which I'll add more to on tunnels Rachel details a house on the corner on Almond Grove and Cross roads that had the killing room. In front of the house at the time was a butchers shop and a bakers shop was to the side, but they were on the same property. She said there was a King K sign on the butchers. This was a capital K with a kings crown on top and had special significance. Interestingly the building on that corner now has a kings crown but seems to have another business in there.
View attachment 693765
View attachment 693766
Shout out to the person following this forum/thread that decided the window dressing needed an update.

On the odd chance that this isn’t a coincidence, don’t PM me...
 

Cornelius Roy

Senior List
Nov 18, 2017
277
602
AFL Club
West Coast
Shout out to the person following this forum/thread that decided the window dressing needed an update.

On the odd chance that this isn’t a coincidence, don’t PM me...
Two completely separate businesses in a building that haven’t updated their signage in what seems like forever simultaneously update after it is mentioned here.

If you’re going to go to the trouble of shelling out for the nice new A frame sign you may as well put it outside during business hours, it’s not really serving much of a purpose sitting inside the door during business hours...
 

BlueE

Premiership Player
Oct 12, 2017
3,187
3,805
AFL Club
Fremantle
Two completely separate businesses in a building that haven’t updated their signage in what seems like forever simultaneously update after it is mentioned here.

If you’re going to go to the trouble of shelling out for the nice new A frame sign you may as well put it outside during business hours, it’s not really serving much of a purpose sitting inside the door during business hours...
Are you talking about the dress making business? Is there any chance of getting a photo?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Deni

Draftee
Aug 18, 2019
2
4
AFL Club
Adelaide
I'd never want someone like Munro as a mate and I'd never want someone who continually bends the truth to be a mate either and you're, yet again, bending the truth. The people who saw a man at the shops and park or beach with the children never claimed it was Munro and just because the McIntyres claim he was with them doesn't mean he was. Nothing they've said about it has been verified, and they've said a lot.
The voice of reason at last.
When they don't like you disagreeing with the narrative, they call you a pedo protector, it's really getting old now!!
 

Deni

Draftee
Aug 18, 2019
2
4
AFL Club
Adelaide
About the witness' on the beach the day the Beaumonts went missing:
Do people realise that there were thousands of people/children on the beach that day. It was Australia day, and even though it wasn't a public holiday there were still thousands of people there.
I lived on Mosley street, Glenelg, I was 6, my brothers were 9.12. and 15.
We lived in the Terrace houses directly across the road from Wenzels bakery, not that it matters in the big scheme of things.
But we were on the beach that day with our parents, my brothers remember it more than me, but we have discussed it before and they said you couldn't move for people that were there.
My point is, those children that were witnessed, could have been any children. Fair enough their descriptions matched up, but so did a lot of other groups of kids, they all blend into one after a while.
I question the elderly people that said they saw the children, words put in their mouth maybe, or hinted at?
No use would come out of that of course, except for the drunk photofit person wanting to get it over with!!
 

Mycroft

Rookie
Apr 5, 2016
46
49
Panama
Not triggered at all and like most others all I want is the truth. So, in other words you can't supply the account of a person who supposedly stated to police that a 19yo Munro was the person seen with the children because it doesn't exist and never did. Bending the truth is being kind. For one thing, from what I can find it seems Munro wasn't 19yo when the children disappeared and how on earth would this person know how old the perp was? I can imagine he guessed at the age and that may have been after finding out Munro's age when he supposedly fingered him for the crime. That's if this account ever existed in the first place. Is this one from 50 years after the event like most of the others? The question of why this apparent account no longer exists should also be asked...?

BTW "International Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Human Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse " is an impressive sounding name for an unofficial body that has no jurisdiction, or as I've stated elsewhere, is basically a Go Fund Me group for people with an axe to grind and there's little doubt the McIntyre children and anyone else that was abused by their father and Munro would have that. I would too, although I wouldn't lie about it.

EDIT: Oh I now find that the person who gave this account (after 50 years) was the self admitted 'messed up' 'Vietnam veteran'. His account flies in the face of the old couple that were actually there on the day. He also never said anything about the perp being 19yo from what I can find and fingered Munro after seeing a photo of him. Enough said.
Let's not forget this Vietnam Vet (DS) served his country, thus deserving our respect rather than be demeaned for admitting he returned from duty 'a bit messed up'. Add to this, that despite any setbacks he'd endured throughout his own life, he had the courage to step up for these children, so he should be thanked, not condemned. Why do you think Police continue to plead for witnesses to come forward, if not in the hope that someone will remember something, even if it happened 50 years ago! This man went to S.A.POL many months before it was ever reported in the papers, so he'd already given his account (statement) and a description concerning the young blonde chap he'd seen with the children, the car make, model etc.. And it was months later, after he contacted Adelaide journalist Bryan Littlely, that I was asked to send photos of TM relative to that timeline, age 20 (1966). If my recall's correct, on that day, it was their brief conversation regarding birthday's and conscription, that had the witness assume they were of a similar age. I wasn't at Glenelg Beach that day, however I am also a witness, and when it comes to murdered children, you don't come forward to Police without realising the seriousness of your claims...and that you'll likely be called to testify in court, and that your words can send someone to jail. I'm sure the Vietnam Vet weighed up the negative impact speaking up would bring, but still he chose to do what he believed was right.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
4,423
7,293
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Let's not forget this Vietnam Vet (DS) served his country, thus deserving our respect rather than be demeaned for admitting he returned from duty 'a bit messed up'. Add to this, that despite any setbacks he'd endured throughout his own life, he had the courage to step up for these children, so he should be thanked, not condemned. Why do you think Police continue to plead for witnesses to come forward, if not in the hope that someone will remember something, even if it happened 50 years ago! This man went to S.A.POL many months before it was ever reported in the papers, so he'd already given his account (statement) and a description concerning the young blonde chap he'd seen with the children, the car make, model etc.. And it was months later, after he contacted Adelaide journalist Bryan Littlely, that I was asked to send photos of TM relative to that timeline, age 20 (1966). If my recall's correct, on that day, it was their brief conversation regarding birthday's and conscription, that had the witness assume they were of a similar age. I wasn't at Glenelg Beach that day, however I am also a witness, and when it comes to murdered children, you don't come forward to Police without realising the seriousness of your claims...and that you'll likely be called to testify in court, and that your words can send someone to jail. I'm sure the Vietnam Vet weighed up the negative impact speaking up would bring, but still he chose to do what he believed was right.
I haven't demeaned him at all but no-one's above reproach. There are plenty of Vietnam vets who came back and shunned society. Read up about how many joined outlaw motorcycle gangs.
 

Mycroft

Rookie
Apr 5, 2016
46
49
Panama
Sprockets...When the witness was send off to army training in 1966, he was just a regular young man who worked in a paint shop. That's how he was able to remember and describe the exact colour tint for the car he saw. He wasn't 'messed up' then, nor was he in any motor bike gang prior to 'called up', or after (that I know of). Obviously I'll know more of the backstory as I was asked to supply TM photos, but this was only after he'd given his witness statement to Police, then later a journalist. There was no collusion or contamination of evidence, though you suggest otherwise. As far as this Justice Tribunal's concerned, I was asked to take part, and I declined, and I don't regret my decision. I also insisted I not be named in it...and as Rachel wasn't yet born when this incident happened, thus not a witness, I asked that the Beaumont children be kept separate. But they name me often and titled her interview "Beaumont Bombshell" anyway. Rachel has her own story and accounts of childhood horrors to tell, and as we're 18 years apart in age, I no longer lived in that house during the time she speaks of (I was there only briefly). I can confirm some of the things she states, but for others I've no clue, because I'm not a witness in those matters. My brother Andrew is 18 months older than me, and he was also a witness to events for Beaumonts that day in 1966. He can confirm TM was present at our home with our father (and others), and they were all involved in the children's disposal. Neither of us were at Glenelg beach that day, nor did we see who killed the children. Our accounts and opinions will differ on some things we witnessed, dependent on what we were exposed to on the day. When I agreed to come forward as a witness, it was solely for the benefit of these children, and I expected they'd receive some justice and their remains would be retrieved from our father's property. I did not agree to being constantly critiqued and criticised on public forums though, and I think the Vietnam Vet would feel likewise.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
4,423
7,293
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Sprockets...When the witness was send off to army training in 1966, he was just a regular young man who worked in a paint shop. That's how he was able to remember and describe the exact colour tint for the car he saw. He wasn't 'messed up' then, nor was he in any motor bike gang prior to 'called up', or after (that I know of). Obviously I'll know more of the backstory as I was asked to supply TM photos, but this was only after he'd given his witness statement to Police, then later a journalist. There was no collusion or contamination of evidence, though you suggest otherwise. As far as this Justice Tribunal's concerned, I was asked to take part, and I declined, and I don't regret my decision. I also insisted I not be named in it...and as Rachel wasn't yet born when this incident happened, thus not a witness, I asked that the Beaumont children be kept separate. But they name me often and titled her interview "Beaumont Bombshell" anyway. Rachel has her own story and accounts of childhood horrors to tell, and as we're 18 years apart in age, I no longer lived in that house during the time she speaks of (I was there only briefly). I can confirm some of the things she states, but for others I've no clue, because I'm not a witness in those matters. My brother Andrew is 18 months older than me, and he was also a witness to events for Beaumonts that day in 1966. He can confirm TM was present at our home with our father (and others), and they were all involved in the children's disposal. Neither of us were at Glenelg beach that day, nor did we see who killed the children. Our accounts and opinions will differ on some things we witnessed, dependent on what we were exposed to on the day. When I agreed to come forward as a witness, it was solely for the benefit of these children, and I expected they'd receive some justice and their remains would be retrieved from our father's property. I did not agree to being constantly critiqued and criticised on public forums though, and I think the Vietnam Vet would feel likewise.
It's well known that people insert themselves into cases they have no business being involved in - it's quite common. I realise the vet (probably) wasn't messed up before he went to Vietnam, I'm simply telling you that just because you served your country doesn't mean you're a good, honest citizen and in the case of the Vietnam War many veterans were turned against society. That he didn't know about the Beaumont kids being taken from the very suburb he says he was in that day (within metres of him he says) is incredulous. I doubt it so much that I don't believe he saw them, even though he may think he saw them. You beg to differ - so be it. By the way, did you know the vet before he went to Vietnam?

So you are neither Rachel or Andrew - don't you have any influence over your other sibling that refuses the property being dug up? A dig might take a week or two but so many of us would have the answer we're after and your brother and sister could enjoy what's left of their lives knowing that because of them the Beaumont children were finally found. Why do you think the sibling that now owns the property doesn't want it dug up?

As for critiquing, when you 'go public' like your siblings have done you open yourselves up to it and it's what this forum is about. This fake tribunal is also open to being critiqued and because we peeked behind the scenes we know it's a farce. Most of us are here to find the truth but this case is choc full of people who aren't interested in that or have been 'mistaken'.

PS. My father, who I idolised, was a WW2 veteran and while I idolised him, he wasn't perfect... no-one is.
 

GreyCrow

TheBrownDog
Mar 21, 2016
52,483
78,626
Down South Corvus Tristis
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt, Redskins , White Sox
I thought I had heard a variation of the McIntyre story elsewhere. sprockets is right, people do insert themselves into cases , the more infamous the better

A slight detour but trust me its connected. I have been listening to podcast about The Black Dahlia murder in Los Angeles 1947. One of the 5 strong suspects was George Hodel


In late 1949, Hodel's teenage daughter Tamar accused him of incestuous sexual abuse and impregnating her (after which she was given a back alley abortion). He was acquitted after a widely publicized trial.[4] There had been three witnesses [present during and who participated in the sex acts. Two testified at the trial, and the third recanted her earlier testimony and refused to come forward, the theory being that George Hodel had threatened her into silence. The trial had caused Tamar to look like a liar, that she had made up the entire abuse allegation for attention.

Hodel came to police attention as a suspect for the Elizabeth Short murder in 1949 after the sexual abuse trial; known or suspected sex criminals in the area were being investigated first, and it had come out in that trial that Tamar had allegedly claimed that her father was the Dahlia killer


In 2003 Hodels son Steve wrote a book claiming his father was the BD killer , and added 4 different geographical serial murders over the next 35 years . He also used Maps ;)

Protection by police or society figures - a similar claim was made against Hodel

The Martin letter made it clear that "GH" was known and protected by law enforcement officers, and that they "let him go".

Who knows if Hodel was a mass serial killer or not. But the story resonates in line with this one. Both were high profile cases, both have been unsolved for over 50 years. People have inserted themselves into famous cases for years
 

Mycroft

Rookie
Apr 5, 2016
46
49
Panama
It's well known that people insert themselves into cases they have no business being involved in - it's quite common. I realise the vet (probably) wasn't messed up before he went to Vietnam, I'm simply telling you that just because you served your country doesn't mean you're a good, honest citizen and in the case of the Vietnam War many veterans were turned against society. That he didn't know about the Beaumont kids being taken from the very suburb he says he was in that day (within metres of him he says) is incredulous. I doubt it so much that I don't believe he saw them, even though he may think he saw them. You beg to differ - so be it. By the way, did you know the vet before he went to Vietnam?

So you are neither Rachel or Andrew - don't you have any influence over your other sibling that refuses the property being dug up? A dig might take a week or two but so many of us would have the answer we're after and your brother and sister could enjoy what's left of their lives knowing that because of them the Beaumont children were finally found. Why do you think the sibling that now owns the property doesn't want it dug up?

As for critiquing, when you 'go public' like your siblings have done you open yourselves up to it and it's what this forum is about. This fake tribunal is also open to being critiqued and because we peeked behind the scenes we know it's a farce. Most of us are here to find the truth but this case is choc full of people who aren't interested in that or have been 'mistaken'.

PS. My father, who I idolised, was a WW2 veteran and while I idolised him, he wasn't perfect... no-one is.
I sympathise with war veterans, regardless to what era. While others watch war movies or read about it... love the action and killing; our returned soldiers etc., actually experienced the horror of war. Could be that if they received more respect and support, they'd be less likely to turn against society. I also have diagnosis of 'post traumatic stress', but for me, I wouldn't call it a disorder. I didn't join a motorbike gang, become a drug addict or a criminal because of what I've endured either. Why would I judge him anyway! Why bother taking issue with the Vietnam Vets' recall, with someone that forgot what they witnessed for 40 years. And No! to your question...I didn't know this chap in 1966 or before then, nor have I ever met or spoken to him. I don't know who this 'new witness' is either. I have to trust he's 'real' just like everyone else. We've all made separate statements to police so there's no possibility of collusion, and even my brother Andrew tell his own version of events as he had a different experience than I did that day. He brings in pieces of information that I had no knowledge of, and visa versa. That makes 4 independent witnesses. I have records from 1966 and before, tapes etc. as back up. I've been reading through the Beaumont Children forum, so I've already seen how poorly you, Macka321 and GreyCrow regard me. I'm going backwards over the pages and I've still 77 to go, but some comments are already enough to make me sick to the stomach. There's always a few decent people that don't believe that just because they've seen names published in newspapers and books, it makes a witness fair game for slanderous attacks. Have you forgotten that I was 10 years old in 1966, so I'm a child witness stepping up for the other children who never made it home. It feels very predatory and creepy to have grown men pick on me. I could have said nothing and be spared all this crap. My brother was age 12 and my older sister was 13 (since deceased). I told my mother and she's dead by close of 1966, said to be natural causes age 34. She wasn't raped, it's nonsense written for sensationalism, and I've her autopsy records as proof. It also shows Colin Manock had no involvement with her autopsy, and I don't think he arrived in Australia until well after 1966. I'm told the 'new witness' was also a child around my age, but his identity has been protected at least. I agree there's a lot that doesn't sit right with INJT interviews and that's why I didn't take part. No fact checks at all and seems there's no way to remove anything once said (I've tried). I've already done enough to help these children, and now it's up to their families to follow through. They can argue their case and get permission to access the Stansbury property. I have the best academics / the experts to do the dig, (they kindly offered to help), so the rest is not a problem. Rather than condemn our efforts, you can always do something yourself to help... like lobby for the Inquest these children never had.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
4,423
7,293
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
I sympathise with war veterans, regardless to what era. While others watch war movies or read about it... love the action and killing; our returned soldiers etc., actually experienced the horror of war. Could be that if they received more respect and support, they'd be less likely to turn against society. I also have diagnosis of 'post traumatic stress', but for me, I wouldn't call it a disorder. I didn't join a motorbike gang, become a drug addict or a criminal because of what I've endured either. Why would I judge him anyway! Why bother taking issue with the Vietnam Vets' recall, with someone that forgot what they witnessed for 40 years. And No! to your question...I didn't know this chap in 1966 or before then, nor have I ever met or spoken to him. I don't know who this 'new witness' is either. I have to trust he's 'real' just like everyone else. We've all made separate statements to police so there's no possibility of collusion, and even my brother Andrew tell his own version of events as he had a different experience than I did that day. He brings in pieces of information that I had no knowledge of, and visa versa. That makes 4 independent witnesses. I have records from 1966 and before, tapes etc. as back up. I've been reading through the Beaumont Children forum, so I've already seen how poorly you, Macka321 and GreyCrow regard me. I'm going backwards over the pages and I've still 77 to go, but some comments are already enough to make me sick to the stomach. There's always a few decent people that don't believe that just because they've seen names published in newspapers and books, it makes a witness fair game for slanderous attacks. Have you forgotten that I was 10 years old in 1966, so I'm a child witness stepping up for the other children who never made it home. It feels very predatory and creepy to have grown men pick on me. I could have said nothing and be spared all this crap. My brother was age 12 and my older sister was 13 (since deceased). I told my mother and she's dead by close of 1966, said to be natural causes age 34. She wasn't raped, it's nonsense written for sensationalism, and I've her autopsy records as proof. It also shows Colin Manock had no involvement with her autopsy, and I don't think he arrived in Australia until well after 1966. I'm told the 'new witness' was also a child around my age, but his identity has been protected at least. I agree there's a lot that doesn't sit right with INJT interviews and that's why I didn't take part. No fact checks at all and seems there's no way to remove anything once said (I've tried). I've already done enough to help these children, and now it's up to their families to follow through. They can argue their case and get permission to access the Stansbury property. I have the best academics / the experts to do the dig, (they kindly offered to help), so the rest is not a problem. Rather than condemn our efforts, you can always do something yourself to help... like lobby for the Inquest these children never had.
Why bother taking issue with Vietnam vet's recall? Because it flies in the face of what others have said and he says he didn't know about the BC disappearance at the time, which I find impossible to believe. If you believe him then you have to disbelieve others who were known to actually be there at the time!

"It feels very predatory and creepy to have grown men pick on me"...

Therein lies the problem. You're simply imagining a "predatory and creepy" aspect and what it shows is that imaginations run wild in a case like this. And you're not 10 years old any more. You're not a child witness stepping up for other children.

I'll say it again, all I and most others want is the truth about what happened. When there are conflicting stories it's obvious someone must be wrong and most of us will lean towards the most likely scenario and against people with possible (probable in this case) motives. If someone says the most likely scenario isn't what happened then I argue for them to put up some evidence. It's a discussion forum afterall.

BTW, does the four "independent witnesses" include you and two of your siblings? So three of MM's kids? Independent? None have a score to settle against TM?

Also BTW, check the topic heading, that's what this topic's mainly about. You say there are things that don't sit right and we can agree on that.
 

BlueE

Premiership Player
Oct 12, 2017
3,187
3,805
AFL Club
Fremantle
Why bother taking issue with Vietnam vet's recall? Because it flies in the face of what others have said and he says he didn't know about the BC disappearance at the time, which I find impossible to believe. If you believe him then you have to disbelieve others who were known to actually be there at the time!

"It feels very predatory and creepy to have grown men pick on me"...

Therein lies the problem. You're simply imagining a "predatory and creepy" aspect and what it shows is that imaginations run wild in a case like this. And you're not 10 years old any more. You're not a child witness stepping up for other children.

I'll say it again, all I and most others want is the truth about what happened. When there are conflicting stories it's obvious someone must be wrong and most of us will lean towards the most likely scenario and against people with possible (probable in this case) motives. If someone says the most likely scenario isn't what happened then I argue for them to put up some evidence. It's a discussion forum afterall.

BTW, does the four "independent witnesses" include you and two of your siblings? So three of MM's kids? Independent? None have a score to settle against TM?

Also BTW, check the topic heading, that's what this topic's mainly about. You say there are things that don't sit right and we can agree on that.
No, wrong again. The Vietnam Vet's statement matches the elderly woman's (part of a couple) statement that the children were with a young blonde man. This woman was the last to see them on the beach and he talked to this couple Looking for this blonde man was also headlines in the paper. Check!

There were other statements one from another elderly women by herself and a young woman with children who recognised the Beaumont children playing with a middle aged brown haired man. This also made headlines and this was earlier before they went to the bakery. The description of the bathers, long pants and no shirt and the physical description matches Max McIntyre, but the last person seen with the children before leaving the beach matched Munro.

The news papers for years reported the children had gone missing from the races on Colley Reserve held on the Saturday 29th Jan and not on Wednesday from a different location. All of this information is available on the thread mostly in the archived notes

The Viet Vet thought Jane was around 11 years old because of her maturity (not 9) when talking to him and the original photos distributed were a couple of years old when Jane was 5 and didn't look like the girl that he spoke to. This combined with him leaving for army training the day after he saw them where there was no news and then going to Vietnam can explain why it took him years to realise, and not until he'd seen the second up to date photo of the children that he realised that he saw them leaving the beach.

His detailed description of the car they left in could be critical in exposing who else was involved, besides Munro and Max McIntyre. That is if the cops really want this to be exposed.

Fair enough if you want a discussion but you constantly attack witnesses including Andrew McIntyre who has only been a truthful and compelling witness helping to convict pedophile Tony Monro, even though SA police refused to arrest Tony for 10 years until they were shamed into doing it by an outside authority that listened to Andrews statements.

The independent witnesses that place Tony Monro with the Beaumont children leaving the beach, at the house they were allegedly abused and murdered at and later at the McIntyre house are the Viet Vet, boy whose testimony was confirmed by the woman's aux police aux and the 2 McIntyre children.

Yet you are inflaming this situation with one of these witnesses by somehow suggesting this statement was made by them to somehow settle a score with Tony Munro? Unbelievable. He is a convicted pedophile serving a prison term. No one has a score to settle with him because he is guilty and convicted.

There is no logical reason you could suggest that witnesses independently of each other are picking on poor Tony Monro and personally attack one of them with this post unless you are somehow related to him or to his mates in SA police that refused to take his victims child abuse statements for 10 years!
 

Mycroft

Rookie
Apr 5, 2016
46
49
Panama
No, wrong again. The Vietnam Vet's statement matches the elderly woman's (part of a couple) statement that the children were with a young blonde man. This woman was the last to see them on the beach and he talked to this couple Looking for this blonde man was also headlines in the paper. Check!

There were other statements one from another elderly women by herself and a young woman with children who recognised the Beaumont children playing with a middle aged brown haired man. This also made headlines and this was earlier before they went to the bakery. The description of the bathers, long pants and no shirt and the physical description matches Max McIntyre, but the last person seen with the children before leaving the beach matched Munro.

The news papers for years reported the children had gone missing from the races on Colley Reserve held on the Saturday 29th Jan and not on Wednesday from a different location. All of this information is available on the thread mostly in the archived notes

The Viet Vet thought Jane was around 11 years old because of her maturity (not 9) when talking to him and the original photos distributed were a couple of years old when Jane was 5 and didn't look like the girl that he spoke to. This combined with him leaving for army training the day after he saw them where there was no news and then going to Vietnam can explain why it took him years to realise, and not until he'd seen the second up to date photo of the children that he realised that he saw them leaving the beach.

His detailed description of the car they left in could be critical in exposing who else was involved, besides Munro and Max McIntyre. That is if the cops really want this to be exposed.

Fair enough if you want a discussion but you constantly attack witnesses including Andrew McIntyre who has only been a truthful and compelling witness helping to convict pedophile Tony Monro, even though SA police refused to arrest Tony for 10 years until they were shamed into doing it by an outside authority that listened to Andrews statements.

The independent witnesses that place Tony Monro with the Beaumont children leaving the beach, at the house they were allegedly abused and murdered at and later at the McIntyre house are the Viet Vet, boy whose testimony was confirmed by the woman's aux police aux and the 2 McIntyre children.

Yet you are inflaming this situation with one of these witnesses by somehow suggesting this statement was made by them to somehow settle a score with Tony Munro? Unbelievable. He is a convicted pedophile serving a prison term. No one has a score to settle with him because he is guilty and convicted.

There is no logical reason you could suggest that witnesses independently of each other are picking on poor Tony Monro and personally attack one of them with this post unless you are somehow related to him or to his mates in SA police that refused to take his victims child abuse statements for 10 years!
Thank you once again BlueE. Sorry but there's no 'appreciate the support' emogi & 'love' is better than 'like'. Glad someone has some empathy for our situation though, and understands some of the back story. I don't wish to be interrogated by the haters or be forced into argument to defend myself and the other witnesses. Out of those 4 witnesses, only my brother Andrew was a victim of TM's. His recent prosecution included another male victim whom my brother didn't know. They were different ages... abused over different time-lines...They'd never met before. I was in Court for the 'Victim Impact Statements' and I will obviously know more than Mr. sprockets. TM had been previously jailed in early 90's for abuse, as a Scout Master, and he's not been set up, railroaded or wrongfully accused. He pleaded guilty and compensated both victims. My understanding is that the 'new witness has made abuse claims against an Uncle, not TM. Rachel is neither an abuse victim of TM's, nor is she a witness for the Beaumont children. She's from our father's second marriage. She wasn't born till 1973, so not included at all. TM never hurt me either and I was very fond of him as a child. In fact once I tracked TM's home address down 40 years later, I wrote to him 6/10/06 and asked him to come forward with us as joint witnesses to that days events. At the time I wrote, I had no idea he was a paedophile or had hurt anyone. I just thought he'd been dragged into something terrible by my father and the older men present that day. Rather than come forward with Andrew and I as a witness, TM tidied up his business affairs and shot through to Siem Reap instead. Cambodian locals and their Media journalists helped us alert the Orphanages etc.. It's a long story, but it took years and a lot of effort to get him back to Australia to eventually face charges. As a side note, you'll see I've hit 100 comments, however I've really only begun to comment on the SM site and here recently. Prior to this, in 2016, I was invited into a private chat site by a 'Big Footy' member and Admin. My communications were hidden so I'd be protected from any over curious or hostile contributors.. I'm now seeing why! Just so you know also... Our father Max owned a white Zephyr and it's this model car that came back with the 3 children in the boot (around 4pm.). TM drove a yellow station wagon (we've photos). The black car you've mentioned came to collect Max in the morning to take him to Glenelg beach, leaving Andrew, my sister Clare and me behind (after he got a phone call around mid-morning). TM had left earlier in his yellow station wagon with 2 other lads to dive for coins off the jetty (our neighbour and TM's cousin, both male teenagers). Neither Andrew or I saw the blonde lad or the sports car the Vietnam Vet's witnessed, as we weren't at Glenelg beach. We don't know the Vietnam Vet or this 'new witness' either. I'd think S.A.POL would have double checked for any collusion. We're also children and innocent of any wrong doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Bottom