I don't believe he was arrested for the Beaumont children though?He was arrested. He's been granted bail and he's facing court at a later date.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
I don't believe he was arrested for the Beaumont children though?He was arrested. He's been granted bail and he's facing court at a later date.
I don't believe he was arrested for the Beaumont children though?
Short of a confession i doubt the coppers have enough to charge him with anything to do with the BC. They would have done so already. jmho.
Agreed.
However, that's not to say, utterly hypothetically here, that they mightn't have a strategy/evidence that will unfold. Presumably, getting a bloke back from a country that has no extradition treaty and is notoriously touchy about handy over people, might be the first aim here.
You've made an excellent point here, and I had to re-read the article again just to notice it. If it's not him, perhaps they think he knows who it was.I will say this though: read the news stories carefully. They make the point that he was in Adelaide when the Beaumonts vanished; but then they make the point thre's no evidence to suggest he was involved. Then why bring it up? Who has made the link and why? The guy is facing some very hard core charges arising from a very high level judicial investigation, but the 'apparent' flimsiest perceived connection with the Beaumonts takes centre stage. There's a big, big story here without tacking on some far-fecthed Beaumont speculation.
Just musing.
You've made an excellent point here, and I had to re-read the article again just to notice it. If it's not him, perhaps they think he knows who it was.
Not sure what I can and cant say so moderate accordinglyI will say this though: read the news stories carefully. They make the point that he was in Adelaide when the Beaumonts vanished; but then they make the point thre's no evidence to suggest he was involved. Then why bring it up? Who has made the link and why? The guy is facing some very hard core charges arising from a very high level judicial investigation, but the 'apparent' flimsiest perceived connection with the Beaumonts takes centre stage. There's a big, big story here without tacking on some far-fecthed Beaumont speculation.
Just musing.
Not sure what I can and cant say so moderate accordingly
Isnt this the same person from earlier who was the friend of the father of the girl who has made previous allegations about seeing bodies in the boot?
From what I recall DNA samples were gathered from the main 9? suspects , this man was NOT one of them. Now whether this is a bluff I don't know. Did a google search and apparently this has already been mentioned in this thread
From a previous thread on here and my own recall that DNA testing was sought.How do you mean DNA samples? There is no evdience, no crime scene, no bodies with the Beaumonts.
From a previous thread on here and my own recall that DNA testing was sought.
I suspect part of the DNA testing of suspects is to see if these guys have committed any other crimes, and if so make it easier for them to circumvent the suppression order and have them outed. Putting them out in the open may trigger someone to come forward with info.
And wiki
On 30 March 2008, it was announced that key suspects in Adelaide's notorious 'The Family' murders were being DNA tested as part of a new inquiry into the sex killings. Although Einem was the only member of 'The Family' who was convicted, police were now reviewing the cold case.
And ABC from 2008
I think it could well be a smokescreen to bluff someone but what happened to the 1 pound note? Or were too many hands involved? Were'nt clothes found folded up?
As a thought exercise only, pre-suppose it is him. Or he was involved in someway. And the cops want to up the pressure.
Start out with the heavy charges, send a message through the media... and thus it starts.
Again, just a thought exercise.
What starts Grizz? A deal perhaps. Offer him immunity maybe.
He'll face his current charges but i don't see what will make him sing. He has the right to remain absolutely silent so i can't see him or his defense team allowing him to implicate himself in one of Australia's most famous disappearances.
I have no idea. I'm just proposing a possible scenario.
He might not be involved at all.
Channel seven news Update on Munro tonight. Will post vid when uploaded.
Why is that the title? Have you read the book? Is this book somehow claiming that the father of the children was involved ?Another book...another theory.
Mrs Beaumont You (and your children) were betrayed
... by Malcom Houseman.
Sir Keith Michell, a prominent Australian actor named as the person seen at Glenelg Beach in 1966 with the children. Michell died in Nov 2015 in UK.
They were allegedly taken to a private hospital at 5 South Esplanade Glenelg (now demolished and an apartment building there) drugged and murdered.
Very small book with lots of conjecture and circumstantial evidence. Dare say SAPOL have or will look at the info.
Why is that the title? Have you read the book? Is this book somehow claiming that the father of the children was involved ?
Biggest load of crap I've ever read on any murder/crime.
The author spends half the book telling us of his credentials as a good guy in the community then weaves a web of conjecture linking all these people (mainly prominent businessmen/celebrities he says are peadophiles or alleged). Author claims he escaped from a kidnap by a peado at age 4 in Norwood SA in 1960s.
At the end of book he says ...
' The last statement Mrs Beaumont made to the press: "I hope they aren't being kept in a little tin shack in the middle of nowhere being used as sex slaves" - Yatina?
Somewhere in there Mrs Beaumont, you and your children were betrayed.'
Have a read ... book is a few bucks off Amazon and only took 30 mins to read. .. not a big book.