- Oct 12, 2017
- 9,261
- 28,371
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Current Louise Bell murder arrest after 30 years
- Thread starter NSWCROW
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Oct 12, 2017
- 9,261
- 28,371
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Rachel has medical evidence (further to what I posted) to back up her personal abuse claims. You have a link to his statement he gave to the Mulligan Inquiry? I found these Advertiser and Daily Mail reports. The Adelaide oval abductions were before Rachel Vaughn was born but the identikit does match his grandfather Stanley Hart.
There is a strong possibility that Stanley Hart and Max McIntrye knew each other. Was Marshall the same bloke in the Salvage and Exploration club with Monroe?
In the document, Marshall writes graphic accounts of his involvement and presence as a young child at the River Torrens drowning of Adelaide University Professor George Duncan in 1972.
It also puts the young Marshall at the scene of the murder of girls Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon, who were abducted from Adelaide Oval on August 25, 1973.
And it links his grandfather to the disappearance of the Beaumont children in 1966 and a string of sexual assaults.
It also outlines, with hand drawn maps and descriptions, where he believes the bodies of children he claims were murdered by his grandfather were buried.
Marshall's confession was anonymously sent to The Advertiser. The prison fellowship volunteer who sent it to Mr Mullighan has quit as an in-prison counsellor but is believed to still meet with Marshall. Efforts to contact him have been unsuccessful.
No Cookies | The Advertiser
Cold case breakthrough: Property owned by accused paedophile's grandfather linked to the disappearance of two children 41 years ago
- Cold case of missing Adelaide girls reopened after 41 years
- Detectives searching property of suspect who died in 1999
- The girls were last seen in 1973 at Adelaide Oval during a SANFL game
- Witnesses reported seeing a 'thin-faced, middle-aged man' with the girls
Accused paedophile's grandfather linked to disappearance of two girls
An historic murder investigation has continued in South Australia this week, after an information breakthrough by police has re-opened the 41-year-old cold case of two missing girls from Adelaide.
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,337
- 117,858
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
And these claims are separate to anybody being killed. She most likely was abused , it doesnt then follow the rest is true
You have proven my case. Thank youYou have a link to his statement he gave to the Mulligan Inquiry? I found these Advertiser and Daily Mail reports. The Adelaide oval abductions were before Rachel Vaughn was born but the identikit does match his grandfather Stanley Hart.
There is a strong possibility that Stanley Hart and Max McIntrye knew each other. Was Marshall the same bloke in the Salvage and Exploration club with Monroe?
In the document, Marshall writes graphic accounts of his involvement and presence as a young child at the River Torrens drowning of Adelaide University Professor George Duncan in 1972.
It also puts the young Marshall at the scene of the murder of girls Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon, who were abducted from Adelaide Oval on August 25, 1973.
And it links his grandfather to the disappearance of the Beaumont children in 1966 and a string of sexual assaults.
It also outlines, with hand drawn maps and descriptions, where he believes the bodies of children he claims were murdered by his grandfather were buried.
Marshall's confession was anonymously sent to The Advertiser. The prison fellowship volunteer who sent it to Mr Mullighan has quit as an in-prison counsellor but is believed to still meet with Marshall. Efforts to contact him have been unsuccessful.
No Cookies | The Advertiser
www.adelaidenow.com.au
Cold case breakthrough: Property owned by accused paedophile's grandfather linked to the disappearance of two children 41 years ago
- Cold case of missing Adelaide girls reopened after 41 years
- Detectives searching property of suspect who died in 1999
- The girls were last seen in 1973 at Adelaide Oval during a SANFL game
- Witnesses reported seeing a 'thin-faced, middle-aged man' with the girls
Accused paedophile's grandfather linked to disappearance of two girls
An historic murder investigation has continued in South Australia this week, after an information breakthrough by police has re-opened the 41-year-old cold case of two missing girls from Adelaide.www.dailymail.co.uk
louise bell and michael black remain unfound, this is despite pfennig being in jail for both crimes, his residence/s have been dug up and nothing found, he claims he doesnt know where their remains are, it's possible he may be telling the truth in this regard
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,781
- 56,723
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #31
Louise Bell's pyjama top contained trace elements of river water iirc so I'd think that's where she probably is, somewhere near the river. Or transfer from his own gear, he was a keen canoeist. His DNA together with elements of river water, looks pretty good?
“Pfennig started to talk about Michael Black, how he had murdered him,” she said.
“He said he couldn’t tell anyone where Michael Black was ‘because there is a chick there’.
“The other prisoner asked ‘what chick?’ and Pfennig replied ‘Bell’.”
No Cookies | The Advertiser
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,781
- 56,723
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #32
Pfennig's initial legal argument was that the DNA found on Louise's pyjama top wasn't his but he abandoned that in favour for arguing innocent transfer. Lodged an appeal on the basis the DNA couldn't prove guilt beyond doubt and lost.
But the court found all of the evidence against Pfennig "established a cogent basis for the judge's verdict" and excluded any "innocent hypothesis" for the presence of his DNA on the top.
www.abc.net.au
But the court found all of the evidence against Pfennig "established a cogent basis for the judge's verdict" and excluded any "innocent hypothesis" for the presence of his DNA on the top.
Dieter Pfennig loses appeal against murder conviction
The convicted killer of 10-year-old Adelaide girl Louise Bell loses an appeal against his murder conviction.
Pfennig was well travelled, school camps and family trips. There was mention, He was sighted in Deep Creek area.
He would know countless places, but my guess it would be close to his home in hackam , the river is possible but a bit open.
My guess is here (10 mins away)-
lots of secluded places to park along piggott range road.
He would know countless places, but my guess it would be close to his home in hackam , the river is possible but a bit open.
My guess is here (10 mins away)-lots of secluded places to park along piggott range road.
I think if it was a bush location, he would struggle to find it again. Bush changes over time, burn offs, storms, replanting etc. That stick placed against a tree in certain way, I can guarantee wont be there thirty years later.Louise Bell's pyjama top contained trace elements of river water iirc so I'd think that's where she probably is, somewhere near the river. Or transfer from his own gear, he was a keen canoeist. His DNA together with elements of river water, looks pretty good?
“Pfennig started to talk about Michael Black, how he had murdered him,” she said.
“He said he couldn’t tell anyone where Michael Black was ‘because there is a chick there’.
“The other prisoner asked ‘what chick?’ and Pfennig replied ‘Bell’.”
No Cookies | The Advertiser
Also there are the two kidnapping sites, Murray bridge and Hackham, are they buried halfway in between? It has to be an isolated area that he was familiar with. The last victim was very lucky he did not end up there.
I dont think Pfennig could find the location again.
- Banned
- #37
I’ll have a listen later tonight. Have you read the judgement transcripts? Brings forward lots of questions imo.
- Banned
- #38
Copied from the Geesing& Pfennig judgements..thoughts??
This is from the Pfennig judgement. Note details of the ‘accent’ etc.
On 17th January 1983 a Mrs. Smith who lived nearby received a telephone call. The caller was a man. She said that he needed urgent information on medical points relating to Louise Bell and gave Mrs. Smith two telephone nuobers which turned out to be the numbers of newspaper offices. He said that Louise had not had any asthma attacks and that her asthma was under control. He said that the wire frames had been removed to avoid noise. He said that Louise's earrings could be found under a rock at the corner of Christies Beach and
South Road. The earrings were in fact found at that site. On 28th February 1983 Louise's pyjama top was found on the front lawn of Mrs. Smith's house.
This piece amazes me to be honest, please read about what Mrs S (known as KS in Geesings case and known as KD in Pfennig case) did with the PJ too found on her front lawn, near the
Early one morning about two weeks after the telephone call from the unknown man, she noticed an item on her front lawn. She initially thought it was just rubbish and ignored it. At that time, she was taking her son to school and when she returned at about 9.00am the item was still in the same place and she picked it up. She said it was folded neatly both lengthways and crossways, and she took it out the back and placed it by a rubbish bin to go out in the rubbish. She said she put it in an empty pot plant container. She still thought it was a piece of rubbish. After a time, she had second thoughts and realised that the deceased had been wearing a pyjama top when she disappeared. She went and retrieved the item from the pot and then had a proper look at it. She described it as “orangey floral” and said it was in fact a pyjama top. She then took the pyjama top inside, put it on the kitchen bench on top of a shopping bag because of its dirty appearance and contacted the police. The police came to her house fairly quickly and took the pyjama top away. That pyjama top was eventually identified as the pyjama top that the deceased had been wearing that night and which will be referred to in much more detail later in these reasons. It was from that pyjama top that, after many tests and examinations over the years, the material that forms the basis of the scientific aspect of the circumstantial case was obtained.
Can anyone answer how Mrs S’s DNA was not present on the top, and how only 1 very small DNA sample was present, so small that the LCN technique had to be used.
If we suggest that Pfennig had taken the top off her, then retrieved it later, rinsed it, taken it to Mrs S’s house, left it in the rain on her lawn for a long period of time, then Mrs S has taken the top, thrown it into an old pot, retrieved it to then place it on her benchtoo waiting for police to collect it.
I am by no means suggesting that Pfennig is innocent, Im just floored after all this contamination and contact with the top of the accused, a) Mrs S’s DNA was not present and b) after handling the top to the degree required Pfennig only left a ‘touch’ of DNA..
Also really curious as to why Pfennig’s daughter suggested she didnt know Louise other than baskeball and a bit at school, when indeed it was given as evidence that neighbours saw them often walking to and from schools together as well as playing in the street (as stated by neighbours).
Its not adding up in my opinion.
Thoughts?
This is from the Pfennig judgement. Note details of the ‘accent’ etc.
- She described the voice as being that of a male about 20-30 years old and she thought she could detect a slight European accent. She said it was not English, French or Asian. It was broadly European and she could not be more specific. He also sounded intelligent and was well spoken. She said she contacted the police straight away and in due course they took a statement from her
On 17th January 1983 a Mrs. Smith who lived nearby received a telephone call. The caller was a man. She said that he needed urgent information on medical points relating to Louise Bell and gave Mrs. Smith two telephone nuobers which turned out to be the numbers of newspaper offices. He said that Louise had not had any asthma attacks and that her asthma was under control. He said that the wire frames had been removed to avoid noise. He said that Louise's earrings could be found under a rock at the corner of Christies Beach and
South Road. The earrings were in fact found at that site. On 28th February 1983 Louise's pyjama top was found on the front lawn of Mrs. Smith's house.
This piece amazes me to be honest, please read about what Mrs S (known as KS in Geesings case and known as KD in Pfennig case) did with the PJ too found on her front lawn, near the
Early one morning about two weeks after the telephone call from the unknown man, she noticed an item on her front lawn. She initially thought it was just rubbish and ignored it. At that time, she was taking her son to school and when she returned at about 9.00am the item was still in the same place and she picked it up. She said it was folded neatly both lengthways and crossways, and she took it out the back and placed it by a rubbish bin to go out in the rubbish. She said she put it in an empty pot plant container. She still thought it was a piece of rubbish. After a time, she had second thoughts and realised that the deceased had been wearing a pyjama top when she disappeared. She went and retrieved the item from the pot and then had a proper look at it. She described it as “orangey floral” and said it was in fact a pyjama top. She then took the pyjama top inside, put it on the kitchen bench on top of a shopping bag because of its dirty appearance and contacted the police. The police came to her house fairly quickly and took the pyjama top away. That pyjama top was eventually identified as the pyjama top that the deceased had been wearing that night and which will be referred to in much more detail later in these reasons. It was from that pyjama top that, after many tests and examinations over the years, the material that forms the basis of the scientific aspect of the circumstantial case was obtained.
Can anyone answer how Mrs S’s DNA was not present on the top, and how only 1 very small DNA sample was present, so small that the LCN technique had to be used.
If we suggest that Pfennig had taken the top off her, then retrieved it later, rinsed it, taken it to Mrs S’s house, left it in the rain on her lawn for a long period of time, then Mrs S has taken the top, thrown it into an old pot, retrieved it to then place it on her benchtoo waiting for police to collect it.
I am by no means suggesting that Pfennig is innocent, Im just floored after all this contamination and contact with the top of the accused, a) Mrs S’s DNA was not present and b) after handling the top to the degree required Pfennig only left a ‘touch’ of DNA..
Also really curious as to why Pfennig’s daughter suggested she didnt know Louise other than baskeball and a bit at school, when indeed it was given as evidence that neighbours saw them often walking to and from schools together as well as playing in the street (as stated by neighbours).
Its not adding up in my opinion.
Thoughts?
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,337
- 117,858
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Geesing has a strong Aussie accent
One of the misnomers is '' no DNA ''
What that essentially means is all DNA identified as belonging to known people ie police and Smith will have been ignored.
- Banned
- #40
I understand that concept, although for transparency, it should be mentioned, just as her mother, father, sister & Pfennigs brother were mentioned as being excluded from the DNA results. Why would KS (KD & Sapol) be not be mentioned as an exclusion? Why exclude 5 but not mention a further 2 for exclusion?
Why is there no trace elements from the potting soil noted? Perhaps that also leads back to an exclusion, just not noted?
To me, personally, and like I said, I’m not suggesting he isn’t involved in some way, but I simply can not understand how (also noting this is within a period of time where DNA wasn’t really a ‘speed hump for criminals’) the only DNA transfer was ‘a bit of fluff’ given;
A murder has taken place.
Body disposed of.
Top retrieved/removed.
Top rinsed/washed.
Top taken to another location.
Top left on front lawn of said location (saturated), etc etc (the above events are noted in the above).
I would be very keen to find out how possible that actually is. To me, there should be more extractable DNA than ‘a bit of fluff’, would you not also say?
Also, just a side query, the extraction and testing used was what I believe was a LCN (Low Coly Number) testing, is that not a form of testing that is under review regarding accuracy etc?
- Banned
- #41
Sorry, my point on the accent was that there was no mention in Geesing trial, but comes to light in Pfennigs trial?
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,781
- 56,723
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #42
Correction up there, I don't think the conversation Pfennig had with another inmate about where the bodies were was admitted into evidence. Not a bad thing, inmates giving evidence against is notoriously unreliable.
Pfennig comes across to me as a narcissistic game player, making phone calls and bringing Louise's things back such as earrings and pyjama top. He might get so bored at some point he'll make a phone call to the police and try to get a couple of days out going back to the scene.
Iam guessing he hid a lot of items at his Hackham address. I would image a hiding place would be in his kayak. Hence the river water on clothing.
Remember he has to hide his offending from his family. I dont think he has a secondary site.
- Banned
- #44
I find this ‘accent’ point very relevant to all cases actually. It proves how evidence can be manipulated, to prove innocence or guilt in a court of Law.
Geesing Trial:
There was no mention of an accent of the caller.
We also have the witness not stepping up to say, that man does not sound like the man on the phone that night.
The witnesses at no point made any reference to the accent of the caller, nor did the prosecution ask this question.
No importance was made of the accent of the caller whatsoever.
If it had’ve been, well it would’ve raised serious questions to the guilt of Geesing, prior to the conviction.
Was the ‘accent’ dropped out of questioning the witness to manipulate the evidence? With the absence of this detail and the omission of the callers accent from the witnesses testimony, one has to wonder why this wasn’t a point of relevance at the Geesing Trial.
Pfennig Trial:
A huge importance was placed on the accent of the caller. So much so, that in the judgement, it was stated there was no doubt the caller was indeed the person responsible for the abduction and suspected murder of Louise Bell.
The witness now states the caller had an accent.
Weather there was or was not an accent to the callers voice on that night, does this not clearly demonstrate how evidence can and does get manipulated to get a result?
Its actually rather alarming to think that a case can be manipulated and evidence omitted purely to obtain a desired conviction.
Every Australian should be aware of this tactic used by prosecution & defense alike.
I now actually question the authenticity of the said witness KS (KD) and wonder how much of her testimony has been manipulated to get the result the prosecution were after?
I mean, it would be extremely embarrassing for Sapol to admit they got the wrong man..again..
- Banned
- #45
Always nice to chat with you johnny mac, I like your outside the square thinking! Sometimes we all look for that ‘out of this world’ answer, when its actually a really simple answer.
If we look at the cases, with LB - his family was away and the family home was vacant, he returned earlier than anticipated from the group trip & his wife & daughters continued on to are her parents interstate. The neighbour was also under the belief they were still away until the neighbour saw a curtain move inside, where Pfennig answered the door. He has, according to evidence, kept the earrings and pj top, for a max of a few weeks. The top itself was found to have been fully submerged in the Onky river, rinsed under tap water, sat in the rain etc etc...so any evidence kept by him, was only for a short period of time, and in hindsight, very easy to hide anywhere really.
With MB - at the time he was ‘camping’ by himself. There is obviously no known location as to where this crime took place. His belongings were left by the river, so we can only assume his clothing is where he has been disposed of. Nothing of MB’s has been found. One would assume if he kept these items at the Hackham address, after the searches conducted they certainly would’ve found them.
With witness ‘J’ we learnt at this time he was separated from his wife and he was the only person residing at the house. ‘J’s’ bike was left in bushes at the scene & clothing was found at Pfennigs house, where ‘J’ escaped from. There is no denying his guilt in this case, it would be extremely difficult to suggest a bound, gagged and drugged kid happened to be at your house and you had nothing to do with it. Interesting though to find out that ‘J’ was drugged.
So realistically, when you look at each case, there was not too much hiding was required at all.
I still find it strange how LB is the only case where he has interacted with people and planted evidence to be found. She is also the only female victim. This was apparently his first murder/offense. There have been no further allegations made against him, either by his own children, students or any other person.
Its Strange in the sense that generally when this kind of case becomes public, we have many other victims come forward. Often victims wait for someone else to come forward before they do. Its often a sense of ‘people will believe me now’ for the victims. This is also why I am strongly against victim shaming of any type, as victims often wait for other people to validate their experiences before coning forward with their own claims. Its a very important for people to remember this as well.
IMO, he seems to be a rather established offender with LB. Not many offenders have this kind of organization on their first offense. Either he was already a very established offender and there are many more bodies yet to be found (not the first time I’ve heard this either), or he has been educated by someone with expertise in this area., but still dam arsey to avoid implication for 2 decades, whilst offending in between!
Even Ted Bundy ‘perfected’ his offending over a period of time.
imo lb and mb have not been found because they are most likely buried on private property, eg a backyard, than in bushland, which is more likely to result in discovery over such a long period of time, dp either doesnt know where their burial location is, or he wont say, but it's not at his place - that is for sure
- Banned
- #47
No..they’ve checked his place out..imo they have been disposed of in different locations, close to each other but not the same spot.. it would take a gusty person to re-dig an existing grave..
Do you have an idea what suburb its located.
its possible he was preparing a third grave in advance. there could be a half dug hole next to the others. crazy thought, i know, but possible.
Similar threads
