Unsolved The Beaumont Children

[Kurve]

Of interest
- MEDIA
- Adelaide Oval Abductions - Anthony Munro
- Derek Percy - SA Mullighan Inquiry
- Somerton Man - The Family Murders
- ITNJ

 

[MikhailDxd]

Whilst I was reading once more the media and witness accounts of AO one comment came up. A cross dresser or transexual was there near toilets but police dismissed their presence on the basis that no perp would willingly bring attention to themselves by being dressed that way. They treated it as being irrelevant

Of course in hindsight what we now know is that one or more transexuals were linked to the family murders. Bevan Spencer seemingly has a link to Frank Bone. And a transexual was prominent enough to be mentioned by police.

I know the family murders are much later and involve mostly teen boys. I'm getting bad vibes though that something akin to a forerunner of the family existed as early as 73

The guy was supposedly on a footy trip from Victoria and lost a bet so that was his excuse for dressing up as a woman.

 

[Deni]

If you walk with a stoop the bottom half of your body is forward of the top half with slouching back position. It makes the arms swing very much like an ape as described in the crazy walk witness re Beaumont. OMG is that a link between the two cases??

Maybe he had a stoop because he was carrying the child and he might not have been a big man..
I know when I get a 15 kilo bag of kitty litter out of the boot I walk that way?

 

[Deni]

Andrew said that he saw Munro bring the bodies to the house.

Andrew didn't see the children at all, only his two sisters Ruth and Clare saw them, allegedly..
Although I don't believe a word they say anymore, not after their sister Rachel came on the
scene, her and her bull**** ruined their story of the BC..

 

[Deni]

Snatching 3 children in a public place in public holidays

It wasn't a public holiday back in 66', that didn't come in for a few years later. Which is why the postie was working that day..
It was still in the school holidays though!!

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Maybe he had a stoop because he was carrying the child and he might not have been a big man..
I know when I get a 15 kilo bag of kitty litter out of the boot I walk that way?

Yeah I considered that BUT the testimony was he saw him promptly follow after the children first (which probably first attracted his attention ) and from that perspective he referred to the stoop in normal walk unimpeded by carry

 

[Deni]

There was also a family in a railway town in regional SA who were adamant that a family that moved there next door had 3 foster kids matching BC.

There is a person on another forum that is convinced the B children were taken by friends of their mother to keep them safe from their Uncle Max..
One of those alleged children has been in touch with me, we've spoken back and forth for a little while now.."Grant" (not his real name) has posted on this other forum as has his niece complaining about the things this person has been saying about their family..
What I had to laugh at was when he gave his research to the police handling the matter and he said he'd read it and get back to him, if memory serves the copper never contacted him and when he called them to ask why, he was told his findings were being filed away for future use if ever needed..
I know exactly what that means, it's been thrown in the garbage where it belonged lol...

But he is in no way Grant Beaumont, and his sisters aren't Jane and Arnna.
They were not adopted and they can prove all of that, their parents are their biological parents.
This person is even using their parents names for anyone to see.
Ivé been on the net since about 1999 and in all that time I have never come across a more
narcissistic, vile, sick, individual as this one!!

He's the type of person who says:
That didn't happen...And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was bad, it's no big deal. And if it is a big deal, it's not my fault. And if it was my fault, I didn't mean it. And if I did mean it, you deserved it.

 

[newbie11]

Andrew didn't see the children at all, only his two sisters Ruth and Clare saw them, allegedly..
Although I don't believe a word they say anymore, not after their sister Rachel came on the
scene, her and her bull**** ruined their story of the BC..

That’s interesting, I believe he may of personally told me a different version of events then; perhaps I’m remembering incorrectly .. I’ve still got what he wrote, will have a look and let you know

 

[johnymac1]

There is a person on another forum that is convinced the B children were taken by friends of their mother to keep them safe from their Uncle Max..
One of those alleged children has been in touch with me, we've spoken back and forth for a little while now.."Grant" (not his real name) has posted on this other forum as has his niece complaining about the things this person has been saying about their family..
What I had to laugh at was when he gave his research to the police handling the matter and he said he'd read it and get back to him, if memory serves the copper never contacted him and when he called them to ask why, he was told his findings were being filed away for future use if ever needed..
I know exactly what that means, it's been thrown in the garbage where it belonged lol...

But he is in no way Grant Beaumont, and his sisters aren't Jane and Arnna.
They were not adopted and they can prove all of that, their parents are their biological parents.
This person is even using their parents names for anyone to see.
Ivé been on the net since about 1999 and in all that time I have never come across a more
narcissistic, vile, sick, individual as this one!!

He's the type of person who says:
That didn't happen...And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was bad, it's no big deal. And if it is a big deal, it's not my fault. And if it was my fault, I didn't mean it. And if I did mean it, you deserved it.

I've seen that page, cant say I've sat down and read the whole lot. I basically skimmed it, looking for signs where they have bagged police. I cant say if their files made it to the trash.. but would imagine the SA gov has a big-assed incinerator.

 

[handle the truth]

That doesn’t add up or make any sense to me whatsoever ( the part about Munro telling Andrew where the bodies were buried because he was afraid that max might knock him off)

^because it would only be implying 1 thing; that Max killed the children and Munro was the ‘unwitting accomplice’ along for the ride- so to speak) weather that was due to fear for his own life/ whatever)..

But,that’s not the story that’s being alleged at all, in fact, it’s completely the opposite.

Munro confiding to Andrew where the bodies are buried because of the fear he would no longer be around - is absolutely nonsense. It is a suggestion of 1 thing, and 1 thing only;

A guilty conscious because of the (knowledge that he has.) and (not the guilt of an individual who committed the crime).



Munro abused Andrew

Andrew is a victim of Munro

Andrew said that he saw Munro bring the bodies to the house.

what you are suggesting is that Munro was then trying to lie about the story to Andrew and play the role of the ‘Victim’ to his own victim, knowing full well that Andrew already saw with his own eyes a completely different story? Utter rubbish.

Your either completely confused and don’t know what your talking about, or your embellishing a story or simply straight up lying. None are helpful, smart or a very wise thing to do, people pick up on lil details like that, and every-time that happens .. the whole story, no matter how true it might be or not - will just lose more and more credibility.


Also “serial killers tend to bury on their property”
You are uninformed, that is not true and not a well known fact at all. It is only more likely dependant on the type of the murder.
Pre-planned, yes, it is more likely.
In the crimes we are talking about here;
It’s actually the opposite- These are crimes of opportunity, and as such it’s far less likely that the children would be buried on their own property.

The facts are the facts. You can’t twist them to suit a narrative you want people to believe. They are the facts. You are literally trying to intentionally fool people with falsified information into believing what you are saying. That is not okay.

What are you talking about??
AM has made a statement and also Stuart Mullins has had extensive reporting and investigation on HP. If you look at his latest video on You Tube he comes up with some pretty damming information that points the finger at Phipps and "Others" that were likely involved eg AM and MM but he didn't mention those names. He also Mentions a dummy grave a Red Herring hole dug to make others think of that location instead of somewhere else.
Haydon Phipps said they are digging in the wrong place and they are in the Sand pit at the other end of the Factory. I have looked at Ariel photos over the past decade or so and it would seem the sand pit has been replaced by a huge tree. Kind of suspicious in the middle of an industrial site!
And it has been found out that Phipps Mcintyre and Munro were all associates around the time of the kidnapping.
So my guess is they are at either The Sand pit area or the sinkhole take your pick!
So now before you go shooting your mouth off do some research...Door Handle!!

 

[handle the truth]

That doesn’t add up or make any sense to me whatsoever ( the part about Munro telling Andrew where the bodies were buried because he was afraid that max might knock him off)

^because it would only be implying 1 thing; that Max killed the children and Munro was the ‘unwitting accomplice’ along for the ride- so to speak) weather that was due to fear for his own life/ whatever)..

But,that’s not the story that’s being alleged at all, in fact, it’s completely the opposite.

Munro confiding to Andrew where the bodies are buried because of the fear he would no longer be around - is absolutely nonsense. It is a suggestion of 1 thing, and 1 thing only;

A guilty conscious because of the (knowledge that he has.) and (not the guilt of an individual who committed the crime).



Munro abused Andrew

Andrew is a victim of Munro

Andrew said that he saw Munro bring the bodies to the house.

what you are suggesting is that Munro was then trying to lie about the story to Andrew and play the role of the ‘Victim’ to his own victim, knowing full well that Andrew already saw with his own eyes a completely different story? Utter rubbish.

Your either completely confused and don’t know what your talking about, or your embellishing a story or simply straight up lying. None are helpful, smart or a very wise thing to do, people pick up on lil details like that, and every-time that happens .. the whole story, no matter how true it might be or not - will just lose more and more credibility.


Also “serial killers tend to bury on their property”
You are uninformed, that is not true and not a well known fact at all. It is only more likely dependant on the type of the murder.
Pre-planned, yes, it is more likely.
In the crimes we are talking about here;
It’s actually the opposite- These are crimes of opportunity, and as such it’s far less likely that the children would be buried on their own property.

The facts are the facts. You can’t twist them to suit a narrative you want people to believe. They are the facts. You are literally trying to intentionally fool people with falsified information into believing what you are saying. That is not okay.

Watch what Andrew said about AM and the Sinkhole around the 25 minute mark...you can say sorry you were wrong if you like!

PART TWO -EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY ON THE BEAUMONT CHILDREN (ANDREW MCINTYRE TESTIMONY)​

 

[Kurve]

Watch what Andrew said about AM and the Sinkhole around the 25 minute mark...you can say sorry you were wrong if you like!

PART TWO -EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY ON THE BEAUMONT CHILDREN (ANDREW MCINTYRE TESTIMONY)​

Not sure you're going to get many 'sorry's' in here regards Andrew McIntyre's testimony on the Beaumont children but are you referring to the ITNJ - The International Tribunal for Natural Justice video?

There's a thread here:

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

The International Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Human Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse IS NOT THE HAGUE. Untested and unsanctioned witness testimony of Rachel Vaughan and Andrew McIntyre hosted by the ITNJ. Rachel alleges abuse by her father, Allan Maxwell McIntyre (Max McIntyre) while...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[newbie11]

What are you talking about??
AM has made a statement and also Stuart Mullins has had extensive reporting and investigation on HP. If you look at his latest video on You Tube he comes up with some pretty damming information that points the finger at Phipps and "Others" that were likely involved eg AM and MM but he didn't mention those names. He also Mentions a dummy grave a Red Herring hole dug to make others think of that location instead of somewhere else.
Haydon Phipps said they are digging in the wrong place and they are in the Sand pit at the other end of the Factory. I have looked at Ariel photos over the past decade or so and it would seem the sand pit has been replaced by a huge tree. Kind of suspicious in the middle of an industrial site!
And it has been found out that Phipps Mcintyre and Munro were all associates around the time of the kidnapping.
So my guess is they are at either The Sand pit area or the sinkhole take your pick!
So now before you go shooting your mouth off do some research...Door Handle!!

No worries, so.. people were digging ‘red herring’ graves in 1966 because they were time-travellers and knew that such things as Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) were going to exist in the future. Is that correct? Because otherwise, I mean, like; what would even be the point right? In theory- you just dig a hole- you fill in the hole- eventually the ground goes back to looking like ‘normal’ - Ta Da; never a grave there. Looks no different to any other normal ground.

So what was the thought process behind the digging of the ‘red herring’ hole again?

Oh , wait.. I think I may know the answer to this one; because they wanted to intentionally make themselves look suspicious? For no apparent reason.

What your suggesting is (sorry for the language, I do apologise, but it needs to be said) .. is bullshit!

Plain and simple. Because everything that your saying makes no sense when you think about the past tense as the present tense that all these things supposedly took place in, it’s a bunch a blatant lies that your making up as you go along to fit in with the facts. (Not that you haven’t been trying to also change those either; “it’s a well known fact serial killers bury on their property” well, you made that one up.

Cut the nonsense!

Why would Max be ‘white as a ghost’ because 3 children had been killed?

Doesn’t make a great deal of sense, does it?

If a person literally has the blood drain from their face from simply seeing a dead body, that’s not the kind of person that you then typically expect to be fine with dissecting, dismembering and desecrating the remains of bodies -handing these pieces to Andrew, entrusting him with the task of body disposal.

 

[newbie11]

Watch what Andrew said about AM and the Sinkhole around the 25 minute mark...you can say sorry you were wrong if you like!

PART TWO -EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY ON THE BEAUMONT CHILDREN (ANDREW MCINTYRE TESTIMONY)​

I’m no longer interested.

 

[newbie11]

Watch what Andrew said about AM and the Sinkhole around the 25 minute mark...you can say sorry you were wrong if you like!

PART TWO -EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY ON THE BEAUMONT CHILDREN (ANDREW MCINTYRE TESTIMONY)​

Do you understand how a witness statement works?

The witness gives their full and true statement, that’s it. The end.

The McIntyre’s have continued to roll out an entire series of appropriately vitriolic videos, each designed to be more heinous, more shocking (or “explosive” rather) than the last.

A person’s witness statement does not have “NEW BOMBSHELL BEAUMONT TESTIMONY SET TO SHOCK THE WORLD”

Witnesses that have “first hand knowledge” do not say things like “I believe that MM was involved” -because what a person believes, that’s a matter of ones opinion, it’s what they think and it’s not what they ‘know’ .. if your a witness, there is a expectation that you don’t just think something, you know something. It might sound like I’m just nitpicking with words here, but those are the sorts of little things that provide a clear insight into what’s really going on inside a persons mind.

AM is a good suspect for the BC case in many ways; he fits the description, he frequented the area, he is a known pedophile.
Pedophile - homicidal serial killer is quiet a big leap particularly if there’s nothing to suggest any escalation in his offending, but still, he needs to be very closely looked at non-the-less.

I guess it’s just too bad if anything was to ever come out of it thou..isn’t it? Clearly the McIntyre’s must be completely oblivious to the greater implications and consequences of their actions.

 

[johnymac1]

What are you talking about??
AM has made a statement and also Stuart Mullins has had extensive reporting and investigation on HP. If you look at his latest video on You Tube he comes up with some pretty damming information that points the finger at Phipps and "Others" that were likely involved eg AM and MM but he didn't mention those names. He also Mentions a dummy grave a Red Herring hole dug to make others think of that location instead of somewhere else.
Haydon Phipps said they are digging in the wrong place and they are in the Sand pit at the other end of the Factory. I have looked at Ariel photos over the past decade or so and it would seem the sand pit has been replaced by a huge tree. Kind of suspicious in the middle of an industrial site!
And it has been found out that Phipps Mcintyre and Munro were all associates around the time of the kidnapping.
So my guess is they are at either The Sand pit area or the sinkhole take your pick!
So now before you go shooting your mouth off do some research...Door Handle!!

In his interview he stated his dad worked for the national security agencies. This is incorrect, because security agencies traditionally recruited tertiary educated people. Max had a below average IQ, Frankly wouldn't have made the grade.

You have try some statement analysis..

 

[newbie11]

In his interview he stated his dad worked for the national security agencies. This is incorrect, because security agencies traditionally recruited tertiary educated people. Max had a below average IQ, Frankly wouldn't have made the grade.

You have try some statement analysis..

So...just to briefly summarise…

I’ve got;

Whistleblowing MK Ultra survivors, who grew up at the hands of a Satanic cult with their free-mason, skull collecting, mass murdering, infant consuming cannibalistic Telecom worker pedo father, who, actually secretly worked for ASIO and ran a couple side gigs; one as a human butcher selling ‘someone’s’ poor beloved missing relative’ that’s now been chopped up and sold for consumption & also worked as a body-boy

Have I missed anything else important?

 

[GreyCrow]

So...just to briefly summarise…

I’ve got;

Whistleblowing MK Ultra survivors, who grew up at the hands of a Satanic cult with their free-mason, skull collecting, mass murdering, infant consuming cannibalistic Telecom worker pedo father, who, actually secretly worked for ASIO and ran a couple side gigs; one as a human butcher selling ‘someone’s’ poor beloved missing relative’ that’s now been chopped up and sold for consumption & also worked as a body-boy

Have I missed anything else important?

Pizzas

 

[handle the truth]

No worries, so.. people were digging ‘red herring’ graves in 1966 because they were time-travellers and knew that such things as Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) were going to exist in the future. Is that correct? Because otherwise, I mean, like; what would even be the point right? In theory- you just dig a hole- you fill in the hole- eventually the ground goes back to looking like ‘normal’ - Ta Da; never a grave there. Looks no different to any other normal ground.

So what was the thought process behind the digging of the ‘red herring’ hole again?

Oh , wait.. I think I may know the answer to this one; because they wanted to intentionally make themselves look suspicious? For no apparent reason.

What your suggesting is (sorry for the language, I do apologise, but it needs to be said) .. is bullshit!

Plain and simple. Because everything that your saying makes no sense when you think about the past tense as the present tense that all these things supposedly took place in, it’s a bunch a blatant lies that your making up as you go along to fit in with the facts. (Not that you haven’t been trying to also change those either; “it’s a well known fact serial killers bury on their property” well, you made that one up.

Cut the nonsense!

Why would Max be ‘white as a ghost’ because 3 children had been killed?

Doesn’t make a great deal of sense, does it?

If a person literally has the blood drain from their face from simply seeing a dead body, that’s not the kind of person that you then typically expect to be fine with dissecting, dismembering and desecrating the remains of bodies -handing these pieces to Andrew, entrusting him with the task of body disposal.

You are only using half of you brain capacity here.
I am not saying it it is what the detectives are saying about the dummy grave not me!
It is clowns like you that do not listen or read correctly!
And Andrew is saying this stuff about the day not me again!
Oh you are really frustrating lol
And think about this maybe MM was upset because the Children were not supposed to be Murdered!
Here you go now your brain capacity has been opened slightly, maybe you should leave it that way lol.

 

[handle the truth]

In his interview he stated his dad worked for the national security agencies. This is incorrect, because security agencies traditionally recruited tertiary educated people. Max had a below average IQ, Frankly wouldn't have made the grade.

You have try some statement analysis..

You say that but how did Colin Monock become the Chief
Forensic Pathologist of SA with no qualifications for the role??
Jobs for the boys they want...and you can not deny this because this is proven fact!
Go check that out!

 

[johnymac1]

So...just to briefly summarise…

I’ve got;

Whistleblowing MK Ultra survivors, who grew up at the hands of a Satanic cult with their free-mason, skull collecting, mass murdering, infant consuming cannibalistic Telecom worker pedo father, who, actually secretly worked for ASIO and ran a couple side gigs; one as a human butcher selling ‘someone’s’ poor beloved missing relative’ that’s now been chopped up and sold for consumption & also worked as a body-boy

Have I missed anything else important?

you forgot
tunnel builder,
and mason,

He didn't count on, one of us being there when they actually knocked down the house, we didn't find any thigh bones sticking out of the ground.
the tunnels in his story would created a large about of building rubble, somehow max slipped that past us, I often stayed around the corner on Castle street (60-70s).
The "K" crown sign on the butchers stood for Kingston SE Beef. everything can be disproven

 

[newbie11]

You are only using half of you brain capacity here.
I am not saying it it is what the detectives are saying about the dummy grave not me!
It is clowns like you that do not listen or read correctly!
And Andrew is saying this stuff about the day not me again!
Oh you are really frustrating lol
And think about this maybe MM was upset because the Children were not supposed to be Murdered!
Here you go now your brain capacity has been opened slightly, maybe you should leave it that way lol.

As a victim of child sexual abuse myself, I certainly take absolutely no pleasure in having to throw another victim(s) under the bus like this.
But here’s the thing; what happens if at some-point in the future that the children do get found and or some evidence does come up that is suggestive enough of AM’s guilt that he can be brought to trial?

Well.. if I’m AM’s defence attorney, do you know what I’m probably going to do? I’m going to turn around to the jury and play every single one of those videos for them to watch. Then, I’m going to completely rip Andrew to shreds in my cross examination of him on the witness stand about all these inconsistencies he’s made publicly - & then, I’m probably going to go on and do the same thing with the witness statements that saw the bodies in the garage.ect..

so unless the prosecution has got some absolutely irrefutable evidence to prove that he did it…he now stands a good chance of just walking on the charges. Bravo advocates, f### bravo - I can’t imagine the McIntyre’s would seriously want to be in a position where they’ve only got themselves to thank for that because let’s get real.. if at the end of the day, they seriously -and I mean, like; hands down, 100%, truely, deadset stand by everything that they’ve said.. then, that^^ that becomes a very real and legitimate possibility, doesn’t it?

“Maybe MM was upset because the children weren’t supposed to be killed that day”?

(Exhales) yeah.. ‘maybe’. Can you please provide me an adequate explanation for this then;

“Back at the McIntyre house that afternoon, the bob-haired girl heard the front door slam as she washed dishes. Her dad had returned home, she said”
"He comes in quite robotic and covered in sand and splattered with blood," Ruth said. A tight, white Coca-Cola promotional shirt that she said she recognized as Mr. Munro's stretched across her father's chest, stained with the deep red substance she would later find coating the trunk of the family car. He headed straight for the bathroom.”

Thank you for opening my mind, speaking with you has just been absolutely enlightening to say the least.
My newly found brain openness would just love to do a full review of the McIntyre statements for you; shall I limit it to just some of the forensic and scientific impossibilities of the things that they have mentioned or would you prefer that I just draw attention to absolutely all of the inconsistency that I find.. up to you?

 

[newbie11]

Anyways; I reckon Rachel should keep perusing the whole; “it was Louise Bell” shenanigans… maybe she’ll be successful in helping to raise enough doubt that she’ll be able to overturn conviction! Keep up the great work Rachel, you keep fighting until you ensure that immediate release of an already convicted child murdering pedophile.

Anyone who doesn’t blindly support her antics or think she should be nominated for an advocate of the year award is an idiot.

Don’t you agree ‘handle the truth’?

 

[DropBearess]

I'm glad this thread has reactivated a bit recently. I appreciate where recent posters are coming from, but l think we're getting log jammed again with Satin and/or M & Ms. Apparently a second book is iminent citing these theories, so there's bound to be an influx of new stuff.

My own theories haven't changed in 55 years, so l'd like to encourage older ideas to re-ignite a balanced discussion. I'm reposting a couple of my older posts, so here we go.....

 

[DropBearess]

This is my first post on this thread. I have followed this case since the day it began and have taken a particular interest in it all my life.

I was born and raised very close to Glenelg and l and my 2 siblings at the time were of similar age to the children. Accompanied by our mother, we frequented the area often and knew the locale very well including bus routes, landmarks, short cuts etc. At this time there was a bus which ran between Port Adelaide and Glenelg, it's primary route being near to the foreshore nearly all the way. When on it's way to the bay, it terminated outside Wenzels. It ran hourly on week days and Australia Day that year was not a public holiday. We caught it frequently and my family had been at "the bay", as we called it, two days earlier. It was incredibly busy with kids everywhere and we bought lunch at Wenzels, as we always did. The queues, crowds and chaos in this shop at lunchtime during school holidays would be unforgettable for South Australians who went there in those days.

As a kid, teenager and young adult, l became almost obsessed at times with trying to discover the fate of the children. I absorbed every scrap of information l could find. I still don't miss much.
But l'm confused in recent years, unless l've somehow missed something. I would like to know when, how and from which source came the information that the children bought enough food and drinks for six people? This seems to now be the basis of so many theories! For at least 30 years, it was reported the children just bought their own lunch, plus a pasty for their mother. I accept that the denomination they allegedly used to pay could have been confused over time, as I believe the police deliberately witheld certain information.

So are we going to believe the children bought multiple lunches or not, and base our theories on this? We need to explore several known facts first, from 1966:-

• There were no white plastic bags then, just brown paper bags. You brought your own string bag if you needed a few things from the shop.
• Pies, pasties and cakes were sold one to a bag, the pies etc. being much bigger than they are now. Mingy shopkeepers would try to squash two in and break them.
• There were absolutely no plastic bottles in 1966. All soft drinks then were in thickened, green tinted glass, with the bottle weighing more than the drink. When l was Jane's age, my six year old brother and l were allowed to walk 400m to the local shop every Friday afternoon to bring home two big bottles of Coke and Woodies in a string bag. They were bloody heavy!
• All bottles in those days required bottle openers.
• The airline bag Jane was carrying had only one over-shoulder handle.

* And another verifiable fact:- the Beaumont children were carrying either on their person or with them 15-17 items before they bought anything.

So picture this. Children enter shop, Jane carrying her bag, probably containing whatever they weren't wearing. They would've had at least one wet towel, although some reports state they had no towels. The kids are served all this food (according to recent reports six p & ps and six buns or something?). So that's six bags if it's just p & ps. Add another six bags if buns are involved = 12 bags. At best if two items in each bag = 6 bags. Then come the soft drinks as described above. So the kids are now grappling with 12 paper bags, minimum 6, plus 2 bloody heavy bottles, armed only with one airways bag and at least one wet towel. How can this be? Grant could have carried very little.
How could three kids grappling with all that food and drink possibly go un-noticed by potential witnesses? If the shop assistant truly remembered serving them, how did she hand it all over to the children and where did they put it? Surely the latter should have been more memorable than other details?
My theory, for what it's worth, is just that the children were served quickly amongst a big crowd and bought their own lunch, which they could carry and had probably half-eaten before they squeezed out of the shop. Or perhaps, just perhaps, they decided to treat themselves to a finger bun each and walk home. The fare and a bun each would've been the same. I think their presence in the shop went almost unnoticed.
I don't believe we should be basing all our theories on one memory in one cake shop, but yes, definitely to eye-witnesses on the reserve. I think we need to accept that. The postie? I'm not sure. And exactly what time did the children catch the bus from home. Was it 8.45 or 10?

• l have met the McIntyres on two occasions in my efforts to delve into this. They are very convincing and seemingly authentic. Goodness knows why they would carp on for so long about this. Who knows?
• Munro, Satin Man? All of them totally sick, but a sudden progression to triple murder after years of successfully and sordidly dabbling in fetishes and abuse? Who knows?
• Police conspiracy? Who knows?
• l would like to know where Derek Percy was at the time. There are allegations he was in Adelaide, staying with his parents in a caravan park. The bus to and from Wenzel's went past West Beach Caravan Park. This bus was always crowded in school holidays and l could never have described anyone on it. Percy had a thing about sand and water. The park was surrounded by sandhills at the time; in fact as children we were forbidden from going there as no-one would hear us if we drowned. Uncannily similar to Wanda Beach.
• l would like to know where Robert Lowe was at the time. Strangely there is a gap between his sordid offences in NZ in 65 and Australia in 69. This physcopath has possibly the greatest propensity of all to commit a crime like this.
• Arthur Brown? The suspect who by far most likely resembles identikits. Who knows?
• And then there is the sordid convicted South Australian murderer of two children, Dieter Pfennig. His name is not suppressed and details of his convictions are freely available.

So my theory is this, for what it's worth, given lots of knowledge of the situations and places on the day. The purchases and subsequent grappling they would have entailed didn't happen or someone would have noticed. The kids just bought their own lunch and a pasty for mum. Maybe they were rascals and bought buns too and decided walk home, or just missed the bus. I think either way, they walked. They just followed the bus route. Grant was just four years old. Before long, he would have cried in the heat and Jane would have looked after him. So from a house comes a friendly man, maybe someone they've met before, maybe not, but probably. "You kids look thirsty, come in for a drink and l think l've got an ice-cream brick. We'll be quick".
All too easy. I think we are over-thinking.
I believe the children were enticed and taken somewhere between Wenzels and their home, and this is where they remain.
Sorry for such a long post, but after 54 years of thought over this mystery, my theory is just the same as it was in 1966.

 

[DropBearess]

I won't buy into any discussion re any of the abovementioned suspects. I don't believe any of them are involved. And there are too many holes in the David Smith story too. I really believe we don't know who committed this crime and maybe never will. I suspect he has probably reoffended since though. This probably opportunistic, but no doubt often thought-about crime would for him have been too good not to repeat at least once.

If only we could get some proper facts about this! Times differ, landmarks differ, perceptions of distances differ. This changes so much, depending on the books you read or the facts you believe. The Satin Man's author claims his sources for facts come from SAPOL documents provided to him by Brian Swan in recent years. The Missing Beaumont Children's author claims reliable sources quoted by media at the time. Who knows if they caught the 8.45am bus from home or the 10am? Who knows how many pasties they bought? What was the exact name then
of the beach/reserve location they were reliably seen? All this and much more could change things in an instant. I think Chinese whispers killed the trail long ago, if there ever was one. SAPOL had never dealt with anything like it and were hopelessly unprepared and under-resourced.

All it takes is for just one 'reliable witness' to be wrong. Then we're back to square nowhere.

One thing which l ponder over which doesn't depend on 'facts' is how Jane was expected to know the time-frame she was expected to go by. Why has no-one thought of this? A watch has never been listed amongst the childrens' belongings. I think this suggests the children would have remained in view at all times of the giant clock at the end of jetty road. This would work in with the responsible attitude Jane's parents said she had. I don't think they went anywhere else.

If the children were indeed in Wenzels at 11.45, surely this suggests they fully intended to catch the noon bus as instructed. Why would they be there at that precise time if they were in the process of being abducted? If they were buying food for extra people, someone would have been waiting to help carry it. If so, why would that someone send all three kids into the shop? I think the shop assistant was mistaken. I think the children were certainly there, but the pound and all the pastries were bought by another family. You couldn't park a car outside Wenzels then. The whole area was a very big bus zone.

I think this case is so baffling because the children literally vanished after their last sighting in the shop. I think they bought lunch for themselves and their mother, then headed outside and somehow missed the bus. In those days busses could be inaccurate by 20 mins either side, particularly that run. I think they decided to walk home. It has been said a four year old couldn't do that in the heat but l beg to differ. At that time, few mothers drove. I and my siblings of similar age walked everywhere, anytime and in any weather. Accompanied by our mother, with our youngest aged four, we could easily cover 2kms on a blazing day, such was the wiriness and fitness of all kids at the time.

I think they took a short cut through the back streets. Their mother said they had walked to the beach with her before, so clever Jane would have known this. I knew all available short cuts in my area when l was nine.

I think someone they may have known vaguely, or were enticed to trust led them into his home on a hot day, with the promise of a quick fizzy drink and a slice of ice cream. Houses are big and sturdy in Glenelg. Once a door was locked behind them, there would have been no chance. Neighbours would have been running their fans and coolers, which were deafening to outside noise in those days.

Maybe the offender was young; unemployed or a student on holidays. A first timer who lived with his parents. Perhaps they were away and he was alone with the strange thoughts he'd probably had for years. The chance presented itself and the rest is history, hence no trace and the apparent disappearance into thin air.