Unsolved The Beaumont Children

[grizzlym]

Maybe, but he went to an awful lot of trouble to groom them first if killing was his only motive.

I guess you could make the argument, picking up a previous poster's contention he was a sadistic psychopath centred around children, that being able to take them, then take their lives and vanish was what it was about. Obviously that's one of many scenarios possible.

On one of the documentaries I watched, which ahd footage of some of the people involve in the case, one guy said, "the coppers believed that they were taken to somewhere within 1 kilometre of Glenelg and probably killed there". I guess one of the things that they have been working on truying to determine whether it was planned/groomed more long-term, rther than being an opportunistic crime that unfolded on that day. With all that being said, it appears, ceratinly with the information available to the public now, that what we currently know, isn't much different to what they knew soon after the crime. The possible sighting in Malvern notwithstanding.

 

[Duritz]

Yeah, I hear ya. There are a lot of things that seemingly don't make sense about this case.

Maybe he just wanted to kill ?

Ultimately I think that's it.

 

[Duritz]

I guess you could make the argument, picking up a previous poster's contention he was a sadistic psychopath centred around children, that being able to take them, then take their lives and vanish was what it was about. Obviously that's one of many scenarios possible.

On one of the documentaries I watched, which ahd footage of some of the people involve in the case, one guy said, "the coppers believed that they were taken to somewhere within 1 kilometre of Glenelg and probably killed there". I guess one of the things that they have been working on truying to determine whether it was planned/groomed more long-term, rther than being an opportunistic crime that unfolded on that day. With all that being said, it appears, ceratinly with the information available to the public now, that what we currently know, isn't much different to what they knew soon after the crime. The possible sighting in Malvern notwithstanding.

What was that?

 

[grizzlym]

What was that?

I believe it's this one.

In the second half hour.

 

[Rufus Flywheel]

I guess you could make the argument, picking up a previous poster's contention he was a sadistic psychopath centred around children, that being able to take them, then take their lives and vanish was what it was about. Obviously that's one of many scenarios possible.

On one of the documentaries I watched, which ahd footage of some of the people involve in the case, one guy said, "the coppers believed that they were taken to somewhere within 1 kilometre of Glenelg and probably killed there". I guess one of the things that they have been working on truying to determine whether it was planned/groomed more long-term, rther than being an opportunistic crime that unfolded on that day. With all that being said, it appears, ceratinly with the information available to the public now, that what we currently know, isn't much different to what they knew soon after the crime. The possible sighting in Malvern notwithstanding.

Yes, the motives of these types can be varied. Was there long term grooming involved? Was it a pre-planned, organised and detailed abduction by a single person? Or was it a group of people involved? We now start to get into the 'art' of criminal profiling, the type of work they first developed in Quantico for serious serial crimes offenders. We have a number of police here who were trained at Quantico in this type of work of profiling.

Another theory (as if there aren't enough already) is that it was originally a kidnapping by a child sex offender perhaps with the intention of letting them go afterwards. Perhaps the children recognised him or knew him and threatened to report - expose - what he did to them? Perhaps the offender panicked at this and then decided to kill them, not being a pre-planned murder but a spontaneous unplanned action. The killers panic afterwards, if there was any, would then require him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the bodies.

Ultimately, whatever the actions of this person/s, they defy our common beliefs and understanding. They are repugnant, vile and abhorrent. Evil walked the streets of Glenelg that hot day in 1966.

 

[Duritz]

I believe it's this one.

In the second half hour.

Yep, that case. It's a tenuous link at best though.

 

[grizzlym]

Yes, the motives of these types can be varied. Was there long term grooming involved? Was it a pre-planned, organised and detailed abduction by a single person? Or was it a group of people involved? We now start to get into the 'art' of criminal profiling, the type of work they first developed in Quantico for serious serial crimes offenders. We have a number of police here who were trained at Quantico in this type of work of profiling.

I would have thought that profiling is something the police would be actively pursuing with this. And would have been for sometme. Although with the absence of much evdience and the age of the crime, there's not a lof variables that can be pucnhed into databses to narrow the fields much.

Another theory (as if there aren't enough already) is that it was originally a kidnapping by a child sex offender perhaps with the intention of letting them go afterwards. Perhaps the children recognised him or knew him and threatened to report - expose - what he did to them? Perhaps the offender panicked at this and then decided to kill them, not being a pre-planned murder but a spontaneous unplanned action. The killers panic afterwards, if there was any, would then require him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the bodies.

Yeah, I know what you mean. In one scenario the murder wasn't planned, and when it happened he just disappeared back into his life. Lying low for the rest of his days. Unlike the commonly held, "once you kill like this you don;t stop'.

Ultimately, whatever the actions of this person/s, they defy our common beliefs and understanding. They are repugnant, vile and abhorrent. Evil walked the streets of Glenelg that hot day in 1966.

Agreed. I think the other thing about these sorts of people is we tend to - well, I do - generalise about what makes them tick. The apparent subtetlies of deviance which forms their world view are staggering. She told me about a priest who didn't regard children as children. And that they didn;t know they were either. She made a point of stating it wasn't as simple as denial re his crimes, but actually something far more twisted that influenced what he became. And on it goes. So while utterly evil and repugnant to many, what actually drove them is probably far more complexed and nuanced than many of us can, or care to understand beyond the general.

 

[grizzlym]

Yep, that case. It's a tenuous link at best though.

Just like chasing down 12,000 odd tip-offs that only advance the investigation by eliminating some peole from the pool.

I read somewhere that there's 12 men that they can't eliminate from their enquiries.

 

[grizzlym]

Intresting interview woth former detective Bill Hayes on ABC just a couple of weeks back.

I believe he's referring to the Satin Man.

http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/content/s4394666.htm

His reply to the question of whether new tools could shed light on the case was sobering: "there is no crime scene or evidence to go over... we're reliant on finding something.... or someone coming forward"

 

[Rufus Flywheel]

Intresting interview woth former detective Bill Hayes on ABC just a couple of weeks back.

I believe he's referring to the Satin Man.

http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/content/s4394666.htm

His reply to the question of whether new tools could shed light on the case was sobering: "there is no crime scene or evidence to go over... we're reliant on finding something.... or someone coming forward"

Which means of course that, sadly, we (and especially the family) may never really know what happened or who was responsible. It's the reality that police face with cold cases that, while there have been a number of remarkable breakthroughs in many cases, this particular one had very little to go on. Time is erasing other potential witnesses that may have come forward.

 

[Subprime]

Intresting interview woth former detective Bill Hayes on ABC just a couple of weeks back.

I believe he's referring to the Satin Man.

http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/content/s4394666.htm

His reply to the question of whether new tools could shed light on the case was sobering: "there is no crime scene or evidence to go over... we're reliant on finding something.... or someone coming forward"

The witness statements would hold the key now to identifying the abductor, I can't help thinking there is something there. It was broad daylight, there was interaction for a fair period of time between the children and the suspect in front of witnesses and between the witnesses and the suspect in relation to the money ruse.

I struggle to see why they couldn't be disclosed now in the form of an inquest to open the matter up. While the witnesses may have passed on, if detailed statements are available, then what was said may still hold the vital information.

 

[grizzlym]

The witness statements would hold the key now to identifying the abductor, I can't help thinking there is something there. It was broad daylight, there was interaction for a fair period of time between the children and the suspect in front of witnesses and between the witnesses and the suspect in relation to the money ruse.

I struggle to see why they couldn't be disclosed now in the form of an inquest to open the matter up. While the witnesses may have passed on, if detailed statements are available, then what was said may still hold the vital information.

I agree with ya. According to the documentary above, the winesses said he played with the children for an hour. That's a long time, especially when they said their was something odd about it all. Just in relation to the money thing and their account according to that documentary, when he said 'our money'. It might also have been, in part', because he started to feel people were watching him etc, so it was to try to give the impression all was above all.

 

[Rufus Flywheel]

The witness statements would hold the key now to identifying the abductor, I can't help thinking there is something there. It was broad daylight, there was interaction for a fair period of time between the children and the suspect in front of witnesses and between the witnesses and the suspect in relation to the money ruse.

I struggle to see why they couldn't be disclosed now in the form of an inquest to open the matter up. While the witnesses may have passed on, if detailed statements are available, then what was said may still hold the vital information.

I think that the problem today is that the witness statements probably held the key ... back in 1966! With over 50 years having past, witnesses have also passed. Those still alive may struggle to go into further detail of the events they saw some 50 years ago. There were be reasonable questions about the reliable now of any 'new' witnesses recollections.

I think that the hope of a successful prosecution of the offender may also have passed now. The best that we can hope for is finding the children now and at the very least identifying a suspect who, based upon the evidence available (including research) is the most probable suspect in the matter.

 

[Perth gal]

The other thing about the Satin Man - and I proudly say I don;t get the mind of a deviant - but if you'd gone and killed three kids why do you show your kids and risk at any point the whole thing going pear-shaped? Sure get around in satin, do what you do, but killing three kids is crossing a pretty big line even by those standards. The risk you expose yourself to - no pun intended - and your satin world collapsing would be huge. Why do that?

But I agree on the surface it's a very compelling theory. I'd of thought the cops would have done anything to solve this. Left no stone unturned.

Because he knew he would be protected. It's all been a big cover up. In my opinion. In a lot of people's opinion.

 

[Subprime]

I agree with ya. According to the documentary above, the winesses said he played with the children for an hour. That's a long time, especially when they said their was something odd about it all. Just in relation to the money thing and their account according to that documentary, when he said 'our money'. It might also have been, in part', because he started to feel people were watching him etc, so it was to try to give the impression all was above all.

The problem is we get snippets in these documentaries of what must be very detailed statements. The witnesses appear to have been sober, elderly people who should have been questioned at length about what they saw and when on that day.

If the investigation was thorough, and one senior police officer on one of the specials who reviewed it said it was, then maybe there are pieces of information there that just haven't been tied to something else. We won't know until someone unravels it but they won't be able to that until its all on the public record.

The money ruse is part of the abductors MO as far as I see it. It was a means of gaining trust, dependence, co-operation, loyalty, it was a psychological trick on the children and way of getting past witnesses who might have stopped him and questioned what the hell he was doing.

 

[grizzlym]

Because he knew he would be protected. It's all been a big cover up. In my opinion. In a lot of people's opinion.

I am naturally drawn to conspiracies. I think many people are. And it certainly fits. My concern is that it has so many moving parts, is dependant on so many people keeiping quiet, that I find it unlikely to have held up over all these years.

 

[grizzlym]

The problem is we get snippets in these documentaries of what must be very detailed statements. The witnesses appear to have been sober, elderly people who should have been questioned at length about what they saw and when on that day.

If the investigation was thorough, and one senior police officer on one of the specials who reviewed it said it was, then maybe there are pieces of information there that just haven't been tied to something else. We won't know until someone unravels it but they won't be able to that until its all on the public record.

The money ruse is part of the abductors MO as far as I see it. It was a means of gaining trust, dependence, co-operation, loyalty, it was a psychological trick on the children and way of getting past witnesses who might have stopped him and questioned what the hell he was doing.

Yeah, I know. And every account seems to vary too. Like I posted earlier in this thread, if the authorities released a defentive account - perhaps they have - of that day, it might help matters. At least we'd all be talkiing about the same thing!

 

[Rufus Flywheel]

The problem is we get snippets in these documentaries of what must be very detailed statements. The witnesses appear to have been sober, elderly people who should have been questioned at length about what they saw and when on that day.

If the investigation was thorough, and one senior police officer on one of the specials who reviewed it said it was, then maybe there are pieces of information there that just haven't been tied to something else. We won't know until someone unravels it but they won't be able to that until its all on the public record.

The money ruse is part of the abductors MO as far as I see it. It was a means of gaining trust, dependence, co-operation, loyalty, it was a psychological trick on the children and way of getting past witnesses who might have stopped him and questioned what the hell he was doing.

Yes, I agree. I suspect that the collation of all the statements has been undertaken and that analysis has been conducted on what they may hold...if indeed anything.

The use of the one pound note has some significance I believe. As others have said previously, giving a child a one pound note to spend was a lot of money in 1966. I was a child attending primary school at that time and I had two shillings occasionally to buy lunch (and that bought a lot of junk food back then!!!).

So, taking that further, in the book the 'Satin Man' there were frequent references to the suspect providing his son and other children with a one pound note to go and entertain themselves or buy lunch. The book researchers noted that this was frequently observed and commented on to those they spoke to. This may establish an 'MO' for this particular suspect which shows a propensity of behaviour when dealing with children (while other traits may rule him out of course). But I think this rules him in as a suspect or at least a person of interest until he can be positively 'ruled out'.

Hope this makes some sense.

 

[Subprime]

Yeah, I know. And every account seems to vary too. Like I posted earlier in this thread, if the authorities released a defentive account - perhaps they have - of that day, it might help matters. At least we'd all be talkiing about the same thing!

The thing is you can't write it off just because its old. I don't want to derail this thread but in the last few years I've seen the documentaries on the discovery of Richard the Third's body after 500 odd years and as I recall it an amateur group largely worked out the location of his burial. I posted a documentary on the Jack the Ripper thread in which once again an amateur group dissected witness statements and uncovered a person found at the scene over the body of a victim and then their life was then unravelled after a century and a quarter.

Calling for the public's help every anniversary or from time to time as happens in the Beaumont case just seems pointless now. It seems doubtful there will ever be a trial so I can't see the point of keeping the witness statements under wraps.

 

[Subprime]

Yes, I agree. I suspect that the collation of all the statements has been undertaken and that analysis has been conducted on what they may hold...if indeed anything.

The use of the one pound note has some significance I believe. As others have said previously, giving a child a one pound note to spend was a lot of money in 1966. I was a child attending primary school at that time and I had two shillings occasionally to buy lunch (and that bought a lot of junk food back then!!!).

So, taking that further, in the book the 'Satin Man' there were frequent references to the suspect providing his son and other children with a one pound note to go and entertain themselves or buy lunch. The book researchers noted that this was frequently observed and commented on to those they spoke to. This may establish an 'MO' for this particular suspect which shows a propensity of behaviour when dealing with children (while other traits may rule him out of course). But I think this rules him in as a suspect or at least a person of interest until he can be positively 'ruled out'.

Hope this makes some sense.

I haven't read the book but the 'Satin Man' was a prominent local businessman as I understand it, so he took a hell of a risk in being identified if he did this. That's the main query I'd have with him as a suspect.

 

[Perth gal]

I am naturally drawn to conspiracies. I think many people are. And it certainly fits. My concern is that it has so many moving parts, is dependant on so many people keeiping quiet, that I find it unlikely to have held up over all these years.

But not all of them have kept quiet have they?
ie the ex wife of Phipps son which led to the writing of the book The Satin Man, strongly suggest you read this if you are interested in the case. It's certainly a strong possibility.
The two men who were asked to dig a hole
The countless people who have come forward and stated there were pedophiles down at the beach and who were approached by them.

And others.

 

[Perth gal]

I haven't read the book but the 'Satin Man' was a prominent local businessman as I understand it, so he took a hell of a risk in being identified if he did this. That's the main query I'd have with him as a suspect.

Every person who commits a crime takes a risk.

 

[Subprime]

Every person who commits a crime takes a risk.

I agree but this guy got away with it.

The 'Satin Man' reportedly owned a sizeable manufacturing operation about 5k's from Glenelg that probably employed a couple of hundred people. He would have been a prominent local identity. Jane Beaumont was recognised by a school friend at the beach, why didn't someone identify this guy?

 

[Perth gal]

I agree but this guy got away with it.

The 'Satin Man' reportedly owned a sizeable manufacturing operation about 5k's from Glenelg that probably employed a couple of hundred people. He would have been a prominent local identity. Jane Beaumont was recognised by a school friend at the beach, why didn't someone identify this guy?

How do you know they didn't ? IF he was responsible.

 

[Rufus Flywheel]

I haven't read the book but the 'Satin Man' was a prominent local businessman as I understand it, so he took a hell of a risk in being identified if he did this. That's the main query I'd have with him as a suspect.

Yes, that's what I also failed to understand. A prominent local businessman...what an extraordinary risk he would be taking.

But perhaps we're looking at that through the eyes of 2016. Today, with Internet and available media, it is extremely difficult to 'hide' from some public identification. Everyone is in the news, social media, etc. Local gossip is now posted on-line and not over the back fence as it was in the 1960's and 1970's.

In the case of the Satin Man, the researchers found only a small handful of photographs of him. He apparently didn't like to be photographed. While his name was obviously well known, it may be that his face wasn't so identifiable.