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

Mycroft

Debutant
Apr 5, 2016
104
30
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

shellyg

Spec Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
7,033
10,166
No Surrender
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
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.
Welcome to bigfooty ;)
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
3,685
4,496
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
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!
"The day after they went missing when there was no news"... You're not serious are you? It was everywhere, even in Melbourne. Massive news all over Australia.

Also, quoting one of your aliases here the vet went to Puckapunyal a WEEK after they disappeared. Which is it, a day or a week? It's a week isn't it, but your argument sounds better if you say it's a day.

As for this 'new witness' I'll believe it when I see it. What exactly does he corroborate?
that TM was at a house where they last seen
same man that Andrew also states seen that day
2 independant witness's 1 man seen So there's nowhere we can see this police report? Why would it be made public as that would give the name of witness who wishes to remain nameless due to his safety
The witness, who had been conscripted for the Vietnam War effort, was flown to Puckapunyal, Victoria, a week after the children missing. "We had no television and no SA papers." he said. "I was away for two years.... And I didn't come back in very good shape."
Correct he / they did come back with problems and as asked my husband who was over there same time , they had no news reports / papers , they were more concerned about what was to happen over there

You also stated the Vietnam vet identified Munro as the person with the kids when he didn't. His description is also different to that of the old couple who were actually there and have never mentioned this Vietnam vet.
the Veteran was also there that day and has even gone so far as to ask TM to meet him and TM hasnnt and wont

Police have a whole heap of new evidence & evidence that corroborates Ruth & Andrew's claims of make & model of some cars involved that day but the two McIntyre kids have never met this new witness

Yep independant witness's
You also continue to say Andrew McIntyre has been a "truthful and compelling witness" yet you have no idea whether he has or has been in this case! The "woman's aux police aux" only confirmed that AM was abused, she hasn't confirmed anything about the Beaumonts being there. Why do you continue to go on with this rubbish?

The witnesses I'm talking about, as I stated in my post, are the three McIntyre siblings and the Vietnam Vet, no-one else. Get that into your head as well. You also wouldn't have a clue if they had a grudge against TM or not, but if that happened to me (sexual abuse) I sure would, regardless of whether he's doing time for it or not.

As for picking on poor Tony Munro, I couldn't care less about him but I'd prefer him dead, so let that go as well.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
3,685
4,496
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
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.
If you don't wish to argue your case that's fine but this is a discussion forum. Maybe it's not for you or maybe you could give us something that proves your case. Did you actually see the Beaumont kids? How do you know Munro murdered them? BTW I don't care if he did or didn't but someone did and I'd like to see that person pay for his crime. Remember we're discussing the Beaumont kids though, even though it's off topic, and maybe the discussion is best to have in that topic.

EDIT: Re-reading your post, you had no idea, in 2006, that Munro was a paedophilr or had anything to do with the BC?
 

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,411
2,465
AFL Club
Fremantle
"The day after they went missing when there was no news"... You're not serious are you? It was everywhere, even in Melbourne. Massive news all over Australia.

Also, quoting one of your aliases here the vet went to Puckapunyal a WEEK after they disappeared. Which is it, a day or a week? It's a week isn't it, but your argument sounds better if you say it's a day.

You also continue to say Andrew McIntyre has been a "truthful and compelling witness" yet you have no idea whether he has or has been in this case! The "woman's aux police aux" only confirmed that AM was abused, she hasn't confirmed anything about the Beaumonts being there. Why do you continue to go on with this rubbish?

The witnesses I'm talking about, as I stated in my post, are the three McIntyre siblings and the Vietnam Vet, no-one else. Get that into your head as well. You also wouldn't have a clue if they had a grudge against TM or not, but if that happened to me (sexual abuse) I sure would, regardless of whether he's doing time for it or not.

As for picking on poor Tony Munro, I couldn't care less about him but I'd prefer him dead, so let that go as well.
What was the news Sprockets? Do you have the reports that weren't in the paper for a few days, got confused when and wher ethe chilren got missing from and the initial photos that showed them yeaars younger than what they were? Headline of them looking for aht blonde man and others when they were looking for the brown haired man.

Did any of this occur before the Veit Veit was in lock down in training? I was living in a small town at teh time and we receivned no information about the Beamonts for weeks.

I have correctly been saying Andrew McIntyre is a truthful and compelling witness as the judge called him in a case that the SA Police refused to prosecute for years because for reasons that can not be legally understood. He has been asking for his claims against Tony Munro to also be tested in Court. There is no reason not to believe him because, because of his past truthful testimony. He is a witness in a current open investigation into the Beaumont's that all of the independent witnesses have given sworn statements about. SA police have this information.

The other witness you are attacking that the Women's Aux Police have a file that proves he was where he says he was, and lists his injuries when they rescued him, claims he witnessed the Beaumont's being allegedly abused and murdered is not Andrew McIntyre and is not known to the McIntyre's or the Viet Vet. He is another independent witness.

Stop saying this is Andrew McIntyre and attacking current witnesses in an open investigation.
 

Mycroft

Debutant
Apr 5, 2016
104
30
Panama
What was the news Sprockets? Do you have the reports that weren't in the paper for a few days, got confused when and wher ethe chilren got missing from and the initial photos that showed them yeaars younger than what they were? Headline of them looking for aht blonde man and others when they were looking for the brown haired man.

Did any of this occur before the Veit Veit was in lock down in training? I was living in a small town at teh time and we receivned no information about the Beamonts for weeks.

I have correctly been saying Andrew McIntyre is a truthful and compelling witness as the judge called him in a case that the SA Police refused to prosecute for years because for reasons that can not be legally understood. He has been asking for his claims against Tony Munro to also be tested in Court. There is no reason not to believe him because, because of his past truthful testimony. He is a witness in a current open investigation into the Beaumont's that all of the independent witnesses have given sworn statements about. SA police have this information.

The other witness you are attacking that the Women's Aux Police have a file that proves he was where he says he was, and lists his injuries when they rescued him, claims he witnessed the Beaumont's being allegedly abused and murdered is not Andrew McIntyre and is not known to the McIntyre's or the Viet Vet. He is another independent witness.

Stop saying this is Andrew McIntyre and attacking current witnesses in an open investigation.
That's correct BlueE. The Women's Aux Police attended the 'new witness' and his name's not McIntyre. Concerning the Vietnam Vet, he provided his Army service records as proof that he was shipped off to training camp a week later. I can easily understand how he wouldn't know that these 3 children went missing, because neither did I. I'd seen 3 dead children but I didn't know who they were, and it wasn't the first time I'd seen such things. Max had handled cadavers before. He and others did pick ups and supply for medical students, seemingly with permission from the University and 'a blind eye' from police (our Uncle was a policeman and Max's best mate). As my father left our mother and our home that night (26/1/66) taking my sister Clare with him, there were no longer any News papers brought home (not that I'd have read them as a child anyway). Andrew had also gone and I didn't know where he was. And my Mother continued to go to work each day. I was alone, upset and confused for some time after. Television was relatively new in our house and barely turned on, particularly after Max left, so I saw no 'news programs'. If I watched TV, it was kids stuff, cartoons. The Vietnam Vet didn't know he'd seen any crime committed that day, so it's easily forgotten. My initial intentions coming here was to clarify some things in the INJT interviews concerning Beaumonts, but that won't be happening now as I don't wish or need to explain a thing while being berated. Re- INJT interviews...Andrew has formed his own perception in some matters e.g. 'that the men in suits were police', while I think there may be another explanation. I also don't know why he said the boys genital were sewn on backwards, as it's not something I witnessed or have ever stated. Andrew has 'victim of crime' status, which would normally keep his name suppressed, however he's forfeited his right to remain anonymous, because the Beaumont children's case needs conclusion and he witnessed TM at our house that day, re- the role he played in their disposals. TM was only 20 in 1966. If he'd done something terrible and turned to our father for help, Max as the older adult, should have taken TM and the children to the nearest police station. I saw it all play out. TM cried, and I saw that he acted under our father's instructions that day, so I don't fully blame TM. And should he choose to speak up, I'll support him (and so will Andrew).
 
Last edited:

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
3,685
4,496
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
What was the news Sprockets? Do you have the reports that weren't in the paper for a few days, got confused when and wher ethe chilren got missing from and the initial photos that showed them yeaars younger than what they were? Headline of them looking for aht blonde man and others when they were looking for the brown haired man.

Did any of this occur before the Veit Veit was in lock down in training? I was living in a small town at teh time and we receivned no information about the Beamonts for weeks.

I have correctly been saying Andrew McIntyre is a truthful and compelling witness as the judge called him in a case that the SA Police refused to prosecute for years because for reasons that can not be legally understood. He has been asking for his claims against Tony Munro to also be tested in Court. There is no reason not to believe him because, because of his past truthful testimony. He is a witness in a current open investigation into the Beaumont's that all of the independent witnesses have given sworn statements about. SA police have this information.

The other witness you are attacking that the Women's Aux Police have a file that proves he was where he says he was, and lists his injuries when they rescued him, claims he witnessed the Beaumont's being allegedly abused and murdered is not Andrew McIntyre and is not known to the McIntyre's or the Viet Vet. He is another independent witness.

Stop saying this is Andrew McIntyre and attacking current witnesses in an open investigation.
So if the Beaumont children went missing from Colley reserve and he saw them up the road it doesn't occur to him that they're the same children? Rubbish. And now you're saying he was in "lockdown", which has never been mentioned before... This is why you're not believed - you simply make things up to bolster your argument. And you say you were living in a small town - so what, this veteran was at the exact point of their disappearance and even talked to them! It was massive everywhere (apart from your small town) and in Glenelg itself it would have been impossible not to know about it.

As far as AM being a truthful and compelling witness, as you know, that was in his OWN case against TM, as noted by the judge. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BEAUMONT DISAPPEARANCE. You and I usually tell the truth (well I do) but that doesn't mean we ALWAYS tell the truth! Which part don't you get? And this "womens aux police aux" has a written statement from mystery witness that includes that the BC were there as well at the time? Got a link for that? You reckon they never searched the place after hearing that?
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
3,685
4,496
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
That's correct BlueE. The Women's Aux Police attended the 'new witness' and his name's not McIntyre. Concerning the Vietnam Vet, he provided his Army service records as proof that he was shipped off to training camp a week later. I can easily understand how he wouldn't know that these 3 children went missing, because neither did I. I'd seen 3 dead children but I didn't know who they were, and it wasn't the first time I'd seen such things. Max had handled cadavers before. He and others did pick ups and supply for medical students, seemingly with permission from the University and 'a blind eye' from police (our Uncle was a policeman and Max's best mate). As my father left our mother and our home that night (26/1/66) taking my sister Clare with him, there were no longer any News papers brought home (not that I'd have read them as a child anyway). Andrew had also gone and I didn't know where he was. And my Mother continued to go to work each day. I was alone, upset and confused for some time after. Television was relatively new in our house and barely turned on, particularly after Max left, so I saw no 'news programs'. If I watched TV, it was kids stuff, cartoons. The Vietnam Vet didn't know he'd seen any crime committed that day, so it's easily forgotten. My initial intentions coming here was to clarify some things in the INJT interviews concerning Beaumonts, but that won't be happening now as I don't wish or need to explain a thing while being berated. Re- INJT interviews...Andrew has formed his own perception in some matters e.g. 'that the men in suits were police', while I think there may be another explanation. I also don't know why he said the boys genital were sewn on backwards, as it's not something I witnessed or have ever stated. Andrew has 'victim of crime' status, which would normally keep his name suppressed, however he's forfeited his right to remain anonymous, because the Beaumont children's case needs conclusion and he witnessed TM at our house that day, re- the role he played in their disposals. TM was only 20 in 1966. If he'd done something terrible and turned to our father for help, Max as the older adult, should have taken TM and the children to the nearest police station. I saw it all play out. TM cried, and I saw that he acted under our father's instructions that day, so I don't fully blame TM. And should he choose to speak up, I'll support him (and so will Andrew).
Those last few lines says it all for me.

As an aside, is the following report correct?

"The McIntyre Family

Names may be a bit confusing. So let me identify the members of the McIntyre family. There is a grand-dad, James Duncan McIntyre. He survived the Kokoda Trail in World War II and was a genuine hero. His son Allan “Max” McIntyre was born in 1929 and had a career as a wire-taper with Telecom.

I will refer to Max as Max, not as Allan. He married Margaret. They had three kids as shown here. Andrew, born 1954, is on the left. Clare, born 1951, is on the right, and Ruth, born 1957, is obscured under Dad’s arm.

Both his wife Margaret and his daughter Clare died in suspicious circumstances. I don’t mean to imply that he got rid of them – I’d guess that The Powers That Be wanted them out of the way so they would not spill any beans. But Andrew and Ruth have spilled beans.

Later Max got married again, to Suzanne Appleby, and one of his children from that marriage, Rachel, is a dedicated bean-spiller. (Thank you, Rachel.) She was born in 1973 and is almost 20 years younger than her half-brother Andrew."

 

Mycroft

Debutant
Apr 5, 2016
104
30
Panama
Those last few lines says it all for me.

As an aside, is the following report correct?

"The McIntyre Family

Names may be a bit confusing. So let me identify the members of the McIntyre family. There is a grand-dad, James Duncan McIntyre. He survived the Kokoda Trail in World War II and was a genuine hero. His son Allan “Max” McIntyre was born in 1929 and had a career as a wire-taper with Telecom.

I will refer to Max as Max, not as Allan. He married Margaret. They had three kids as shown here. Andrew, born 1954, is on the left. Clare, born 1951, is on the right, and Ruth, born 1957, is obscured under Dad’s arm.

Both his wife Margaret and his daughter Clare died in suspicious circumstances. I don’t mean to imply that he got rid of them – I’d guess that The Powers That Be wanted them out of the way so they would not spill any beans. But Andrew and Ruth have spilled beans.

Later Max got married again, to Suzanne Appleby, and one of his children from that marriage, Rachel, is a dedicated bean-spiller. (Thank you, Rachel.) She was born in 1973 and is almost 20 years younger than her half-brother Andrew."

Sprockets...I've never spoken to Mary Maxwell. This is obviously Rachel's story and as with her INJT interview, the Beaumont inclusion becomes the 'springboard'... Most people will have heard of the Beaumont children, so it's possibly used to grab viewers attention, that's all. I'm named without my permission as usual, with my year of birth incorrect...though I wouldn't mind being a bit younger, it should read 1955 (not 57). What's most amusing is to learn that the cause of all your chest beating about the 3 McIntyre's and the Women's Aux. Police, has been taken from Gumshoe News...especially since it's 'you' that warns others against believing such articles. Unfortunately Ms. Maxwell confused the account for the 'new witness' with ours. Similar mistakes happen all too often with the re-telling of witness accounts, and I'm really tired of making corrections. She made a huge mistake but I'm sure it wasn't deliberate. If you read the Comments section ...'Deni' was quick to point out the error to others and set them straight. You are right that people sometimes insert themselves, and I noticed that Deni has recently alighted here as a new member too. She usually brings in her friends. Deni's comments are featured on the Beaumont Petition site as well (check updates). This bunch are full of good toxic banter so I'm sure you'll have lots of gripes to share. Meanwhile, I don't wish to waste my time going over whatever it is you don't understand.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
3,685
4,496
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Sprockets...I've never spoken to Mary Maxwell. This is obviously Rachel's story and as with her INJT interview, the Beaumont inclusion becomes the 'springboard'... Most people will have heard of the Beaumont children, so it's possibly used to grab viewers attention, that's all. I'm named without my permission as usual, with my year of birth incorrect...though I wouldn't mind being a bit younger, it should read 1955 (not 57). What's most amusing is to learn that the cause of all your chest beating about the 3 McIntyre's and the Women's Aux. Police, has been taken from Gumshoe News...especially since it's 'you' that warns others against believing such articles. Unfortunately Ms. Maxwell confused the account for the 'new witness' with ours. Similar mistakes happen all too often with the re-telling of witness accounts, and I'm really tired of making corrections. She made a huge mistake but I'm sure it wasn't deliberate. If you read the Comments section ...'Deni' was quick to point out the error to others and set them straight. You are right that people sometimes insert themselves, and I noticed that Deni has recently alighted here as a new member too. She usually brings in her friends. Deni's comments are featured on the Beaumont Petition site as well (check updates). This bunch are full of good toxic banter so I'm sure you'll have lots of gripes to share. Meanwhile, I don't wish to waste my time going over whatever it is you don't understand.
Errr I only found that website and article today but go ahead and make things up, it's not like there aren't other porkies being told in here. I didn't even read the whole article or the comments there. BTW I didn't believe or disbelieve it, which is the point of me asking. There's also no chest beating going on on my part, it wasn't me who brought up the 'women's aux police aux' and again I've simply asked about them.
 

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,411
2,465
AFL Club
Fremantle
Errr I only found that website and article today but go ahead and make things up, it's not like there aren't other porkies being told in here. I didn't even read the whole article or the comments there. BTW I didn't believe or disbelieve it, which is the point of me asking. There's also no chest beating going on on my part, it wasn't me who brought up the 'women's aux police aux' and again I've simply asked about them.
I've never read the article either Sprockets but the point is YOU continually say Andrew McIntyre was the boy who was taken by the woman's police aux. This is false, not true and a lie.

He is a separate boy and independent witness. He is an alleged victim of child abuse in a current investigation, which has also reported in the newspapers this year and linked on the Beaumont thread.

How you have come to the incorrect conclusion that this boy is Andrew McIntyre if you haven't looked at other incorrect blogs is baffling because this has never been suggested on the threads on bf, unless it was by you? You do continue to post incorrect information even after you are corrected.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BlueE

Club Legend
Oct 12, 2017
2,411
2,465
AFL Club
Fremantle
That's correct BlueE. The Women's Aux Police attended the 'new witness' and his name's not McIntyre. Concerning the Vietnam Vet, he provided his Army service records as proof that he was shipped off to training camp a week later. I can easily understand how he wouldn't know that these 3 children went missing, because neither did I. I'd seen 3 dead children but I didn't know who they were, and it wasn't the first time I'd seen such things. Max had handled cadavers before. He and others did pick ups and supply for medical students, seemingly with permission from the University and 'a blind eye' from police (our Uncle was a policeman and Max's best mate). As my father left our mother and our home that night (26/1/66) taking my sister Clare with him, there were no longer any News papers brought home (not that I'd have read them as a child anyway). Andrew had also gone and I didn't know where he was. And my Mother continued to go to work each day. I was alone, upset and confused for some time after. Television was relatively new in our house and barely turned on, particularly after Max left, so I saw no 'news programs'. If I watched TV, it was kids stuff, cartoons. The Vietnam Vet didn't know he'd seen any crime committed that day, so it's easily forgotten. My initial intentions coming here was to clarify some things in the INJT interviews concerning Beaumonts, but that won't be happening now as I don't wish or need to explain a thing while being berated. Re- INJT interviews...Andrew has formed his own perception in some matters e.g. 'that the men in suits were police', while I think there may be another explanation. I also don't know why he said the boys genital were sewn on backwards, as it's not something I witnessed or have ever stated. Andrew has 'victim of crime' status, which would normally keep his name suppressed, however he's forfeited his right to remain anonymous, because the Beaumont children's case needs conclusion and he witnessed TM at our house that day, re- the role he played in their disposals. TM was only 20 in 1966. If he'd done something terrible and turned to our father for help, Max as the older adult, should have taken TM and the children to the nearest police station. I saw it all play out. TM cried, and I saw that he acted under our father's instructions that day, so I don't fully blame TM. And should he choose to speak up, I'll support him (and so will Andrew).
Thank you for this information mycroft. I find you've been patient while explaining what you witnessed is from your perspective and that whatever Max has told you could be true of bs.

I've done some extra digging especially into the Sasha Stone (not his real name) instigator of the ITNJ and have found him insincere to say the least, as probably many others on the tribunal are. Some witnesses being targeted by them because they gave interviews. I thought it was valuable as a tool to get information out but I think you have valid concerns and have done the right thing not to testify.

I don't know you or have participated on any other blogs or fb and don't blame you for being unwilling to participate when you are attacked and abused on line.

I would like to know more details about what Max said about the Somerton Man as every bit of first hand information could be the piece of the puzzle that might make sense of the conundrum!

I would appreciate if you could respond to a personal message from me. If you click on the envelope icon at the top of page there is a message from me there. Thanks.
 

Mycroft

Debutant
Apr 5, 2016
104
30
Panama
Thank you for this information mycroft. I find you've been patient while explaining what you witnessed is from your perspective and that whatever Max has told you could be true of bs.

I've done some extra digging especially into the Sasha Stone (not his real name) instigator of the ITNJ and have found him insincere to say the least, as probably many others on the tribunal are. Some witnesses being targeted by them because they gave interviews. I thought it was valuable as a tool to get information out but I think you have valid concerns and have done the right thing not to testify.

I don't know you or have participated on any other blogs or fb and don't blame you for being unwilling to participate when you are attacked and abused on line.

I would like to know more details about what Max said about the Somerton Man as every bit of first hand information could be the piece of the puzzle that might make sense of the conundrum!

I would appreciate if you could respond to a personal message from me. If you click on the envelope icon at the top of page there is a message from me there. Thanks.
BlueE... When I first came forward in mid-2006 I didn't use the Internet and I didn't have much idea about what others were saying about the Beaumont case and all the theories and various suspects (other than general knowledge). I didn't read books about cold case crimes and I still don't.. I couldn't know back then, that my name would be published and I'd become fodder for discussed from strangers, or that I'd be written up in books etc.. I've tried to be cautious, said 'No thanks' to a few media & magazine people, and I sought my own counsel concerning INJT... and that's why I refused to take part. But I also believe there are some genuine people giving testimony, however what may be true in their particular case, becomes somewhat diluted once thrown amongst some of the other nonsense. I didn't want a case I'd worked on for so long, to be undermined, or let these children down either.
I've also found that some people can be callous and quite manipulative on line. They sometimes build traps and play games with victims, and I feel this is what sprockets has been doing. What might seem entertainment to him, isn't fun for me.

I appreciate that you've spent your time defending me (thank you), but the 'big footy' rules I agree to, didn't end up protecting me from becoming a target for insults from another. I regret coming here now, and it's also put me off sharing anything more on the SM pages.
I've been reading through the Beaumont children site and I can see you have a better understanding than most contributors. I've told the truth so I know how this saga will end. I'm tired of waiting though, and I'm tired of trying to explain what happened. I know what the out come must be. I lived through it, so it's not really a mystery to me obviously...but it's really not worth the trouble explaining any more.
Going back...A few weeks ago I was told that something was taking shape on the Big Footy Somerton Man site, so I check. I saw Pete Bowes rolling out his usual theories and others joining in, and I realised not much had changed. I thought the new developments re- the I.D. card might have been mentioned, but as it hadn't been raised (due to so many other theories perhaps) I let others know about the latest DNA test being held at the Forensic Science Centre etc.. And that's how I ended up here. I'm not sure how much I should say on SM anyway, as things are taking shape (not for public), but I might be able to tell you a little. I'll try what you suggested, but I've not used private messaging here before, and I'm not confident with this technology. I'll try to message you hopefully over the next few days. Thanks!
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
3,685
4,496
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
I've never read the article either Sprockets but the point is YOU continually say Andrew McIntyre was the boy who was taken by the woman's police aux. This is false, not true and a lie.

He is a separate boy and independent witness. He is an alleged victim of child abuse in a current investigation, which has also reported in the newspapers this year and linked on the Beaumont thread.

How you have come to the incorrect conclusion that this boy is Andrew McIntyre if you haven't looked at other incorrect blogs is baffling because this has never been suggested on the threads on bf, unless it was by you? You do continue to post incorrect information even after you are corrected.
It's not a lie because I've never said it. You must be stuck for something to try to pin me with BlueE. I see Mycroft has 'liked' that post, which is funny because it's 100% false (but par for the course).
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
3,685
4,496
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Thank you for this information mycroft. I find you've been patient while explaining what you witnessed is from your perspective and that whatever Max has told you could be true of bs.

I've done some extra digging especially into the Sasha Stone (not his real name) instigator of the ITNJ and have found him insincere to say the least, as probably many others on the tribunal are. Some witnesses being targeted by them because they gave interviews. I thought it was valuable as a tool to get information out but I think you have valid concerns and have done the right thing not to testify.

I don't know you or have participated on any other blogs or fb and don't blame you for being unwilling to participate when you are attacked and abused on line.

I would like to know more details about what Max said about the Somerton Man as every bit of first hand information could be the piece of the puzzle that might make sense of the conundrum!

I would appreciate if you could respond to a personal message from me. If you click on the envelope icon at the top of page there is a message from me there. Thanks.
I've only been trying to tell you that since the start of the thread, if not before in other topics and you haven't stopped abusing me for it. Pathetic that you wouldn't admit it before Mycroft said the same. And if you had to do some "extra digging" it means you didn't dig far enough in the first place, which seems to be how you operate.
 

shellyg

Spec Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
7,033
10,166
No Surrender
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
the 'big footy' rules I agree to, didn't end up protecting me from becoming a target for insults from another.
This thread or the Beaumont thread Mycroft? There's been some moderation on this thread already but please use the REPORT button if you believe any of the bigfooty commandments or the rules of engagement have been breached.

Just a heads up though for all, if you respond to a post that is in breach it's likely that the whole lot has to be deleted not just the offending post and some quality content may be lost.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Oct 15, 2004
3,685
4,496
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
BlueE... When I first came forward in mid-2006 I didn't use the Internet and I didn't have much idea about what others were saying about the Beaumont case and all the theories and various suspects (other than general knowledge). I didn't read books about cold case crimes and I still don't.. I couldn't know back then, that my name would be published and I'd become fodder for discussed from strangers, or that I'd be written up in books etc.. I've tried to be cautious, said 'No thanks' to a few media & magazine people, and I sought my own counsel concerning INJT... and that's why I refused to take part. But I also believe there are some genuine people giving testimony, however what may be true in their particular case, becomes somewhat diluted once thrown amongst some of the other nonsense. I didn't want a case I'd worked on for so long, to be undermined, or let these children down either.
I've also found that some people can be callous and quite manipulative on line. They sometimes build traps and play games with victims, and I feel this is what sprockets has been doing. What might seem entertainment to him, isn't fun for me.

I appreciate that you've spent your time defending me (thank you), but the 'big footy' rules I agree to, didn't end up protecting me from becoming a target for insults from another. I regret coming here now, and it's also put me off sharing anything more on the SM pages.
I've been reading through the Beaumont children site and I can see you have a better understanding than most contributors. I've told the truth so I know how this saga will end. I'm tired of waiting though, and I'm tired of trying to explain what happened. I know what the out come must be. I lived through it, so it's not really a mystery to me obviously...but it's really not worth the trouble explaining any more.
Going back...A few weeks ago I was told that something was taking shape on the Big Footy Somerton Man site, so I check. I saw Pete Bowes rolling out his usual theories and others joining in, and I realised not much had changed. I thought the new developments re- the I.D. card might have been mentioned, but as it hadn't been raised (due to so many other theories perhaps) I let others know about the latest DNA test being held at the Forensic Science Centre etc.. And that's how I ended up here. I'm not sure how much I should say on SM anyway, as things are taking shape (not for public), but I might be able to tell you a little. I'll try what you suggested, but I've not used private messaging here before, and I'm not confident with this technology. I'll try to message you hopefully over the next few days. Thanks!
Can you point to just ONE post where I attacked you before you started posting in here? I don't think I've even ever mentioned you.
 

Top Bottom