Yeah I think he did find Andrew in bed with Munro and I haven't seen that disputed anywhere, I think Andrew was groomed by paedophile Munro from a fairly young age and he continued to stay in touch with Andrew for a long time. Just my opinion but I saw nothing in the heavily edited video of Max McIntyre to indicate he really did know who killed the Beaumont children.But I googled this Max McIntyre bloke. Do people believe him when he says he knows who killed the kids or that he witnessed his son in bed with the Monroe guy or was he just full of sh*t ?
something you will have to decide for yourself.Can’t be bothered reading back through this thread as it seems to be more focussed on attacking journos rather than on what happens to the kids.
But I googled this Max McIntyre bloke. Do people believe him when he says he knows who killed the kids or that he witnessed his son in bed with the Monroe guy or was he just full of sh*t ?
I think I’ve formed a few opinions based on what he says in the interviews, regardless of whether he’s being honest or not.something you will have to decide for yourself.
keeping in mind, there are two other families offering up their dads/grandads in the same way.
each account has a journo cheering for that particular case.
all these different suspects cant be involved, so two or more must be dud claims.
most of us writing in here in big footy, have alternate theories and rule out the other theories due to the lack of evidence
Reads like a James Ellroy novelThere has been something nagging at me a bit, it's in part 2 of Bryan Littlely's recent challenge. I'll highlight it.
I'm reading it that Max McIntyre had a big hand in getting Tony Munro back to Australia to face charges of and in getting a conviction for sexually abusing Andrew. They must have all been working together at some stage and then it all went bad? Or am I reading it wrong?
BEAUMONT LEAD PART 2
Max McIntyre sparked the conviction of Tony Munro when he told me in the first words of our first meeting "I know a lot about the Beaumont killings" and pointed to Munro as the culprit. Munro, a Glenelg Scout leader, was convicted of violently raping Max's son a little over a month before the Beaumont kids disappeared.
Max's will called on his nephew, former Lib leader, turned Labor Minister, Martin Hamilton-Smith, to destroy all his records.
Max had written repeatedly to SAPOL about cold case crimes over many years. He even told them he'd met with slain NCA officer Geoffrey Bowen just weeks before his murder to discuss phone tapping and crimes in SA.
Max, a self-confessed big Labor union man when with Telecom, claimed to have been a phone tapper for SAPOL and "the police diver trainer". Max claimed to be the best diver in SA.
In the days immediately after Max's death, fires burned across his property at Stansbury.
Max's "research" should be provided to police. His assistance to get Munro convicted after 50 years of flying under the radar as SAPOL Detective David Sheridan described as "one of the most notorious pedophiles in SA" cannot be underestimated.
Friends, if you feel there's benefit in investigators having full access to this material, your sharing and comments on this post could play a part in bringing that material out from behind closed doors.
There is a Facebook page run by Stuart Mullins from the Satin Man book fame.Friends, if you feel there's benefit in investigators having full access to this material, your sharing and comments on this post could play a part in bringing that material out from behind closed doors.
You're right, John Wayne Gacy comes to mind as does Gary Ridgway, the green river killer, their families were completely in the dark!!If we look back at every serial killer. Nearly all hid what they were doing from their immediate family.
That's what pricked my eyes open, how could he get that sentence so wrong. Someone who claims he'swas convicted of violently raping Max's son a little over a month before the Beaumont kids disappeared.
He wasnt - he was convicted 50 years after they went missing
I don't think it was a group that took those kids. Why choose them to take when they came from a stable family home with the reasonable expectation that the police would be all over their disappearance, parents and a neighbourhood that would never give up looking for them when there were apparently hundreds of kids to choose from in government and church run institutions.I feel the biggest mistake in the whole BC case, is trying to pin it to one man- hence the conflicting descriptions on the day of the disappearance, and the boldness of some people in their role (ie speaking to witnesses).
After reading the material here, I'm of the opinion that many people played a role, and that the names mentioned here were involved in varying degrees- I wouldn't exclude anyone. I would also allow for some other names not mentioned, to be added.
It (the abduction) appears to be similar to a heist- planned and executed. Munro, M McIntyre, Phipps have been connected with each other, allow for a few on the peripheral, and it's easy to see how different people would play different roles.
Another issue I have is the assessment of those involved- this is a subculture, people meet and get to know each other, some build strong relationships, others take a dislike to another's personality and have little to do with them. Doesn't mean they won't help each other, or look out for each other, as they are on the same "team". So saying x wasn't into boys, y wasn't into girls, is no way to exclude them (I do tend to exclude BSVE, as he was a homosexual rapist, rather than a pedo)
This was raised earlier in the thread somewhere. That they weren't seen eating anything from that big order they placed at Wenzels but were spotted sitting on a bench chatting to someone apparently after they'd been to Wenzels is strange imo. I think the report of them going in to Wenzels with a one pound note is a red herring, it wasn't them.One fact I haven't seen adressed- was there any confirmation of the BC eating and drinking in public?
It seems they vanished into thin air once they left Wenzels.
Huh, it clearly means he was convicted of the crime he had committed a month before the Beaumonts.That's what pricked my eyes open, how could he get that sentence so wrong. Someone who claims he's
right up there and has solved the case, if only people would listen, and he comes out with a clanger like that.
It's laughable LOL
It was worded badlyHuh, it clearly means he was convicted of the crime he had committed a month before the Beaumonts.
Thats not saying he was tried and convicted of it a month before, it means he was convicted 50yrs after the event that actually took place a month before the beaumont abduction.
I find it more unbelievable that someone would misinterpret that and run with it to be honest.