Play in a simulated football league - find great movies and TV shows - play Werewolf - play video games (try our Minecraft server) - argue about politics - listen to music - keep up with science news - play board games - just gasbag - discuss true crime - and so much more.
Of course it's my opinion and what the McIntyre children have said isn't he only reason I've come to this point of view. I don't see a contradiction between what they've said in this instance which was their father came home around 2.00 pm. He had left bare chested with a towel and long trousers but came back with a tshirt that belonged to Munro which had blood on it. Around 4.00 pm McIntyre received a phone call upon which he became very upset to the point he's almost in tears (there are quotes, but I'm paraphrasing) and not long after Munro comes to their house with the children in the back boot. They made mention of many others either patrolling the street or driving past. McIntyre is extremely upset saying the poor children etc, saying they were alive when he left and biaazarely making statements to Ruth that she didn't believe.And again we have a contradiction in action. The children are quite happy making allegations of proxies thrown over cliffs etc and other deaths of children from homes yet the Beaumonts are an accident???
( I accept this is your comment but it still doesnt stand up)
Hahaha Someone demands the same standards of proof! You're trolling. Out of any of the children making claims from this time Andrew's is the only one that has been tested in court and has been proved. Maybe if the cops accented his statement this could have happens years earlier in that instance and for his current claims I'd like to see it in Court as well.Just to expand on that point, what was supposed to happen to the Beaumont children if they weren't meant to be murdered? Just released back to their parents or police? Has that ever happened anywhere else with THREE children? By someone who wouldn't think twice about throwing three children off a cliff or feeding his own child to a sex predator?
I'm glad someone else demands the same standard of proof as myself.
You're still going on about the abuse of children in State care, right? I'm not interested. Stick to the Beaumonts and I'll say it again, if McIntyre was found by the Mulligan Inquiry to have grabbed three kids, paraded them around town as the Beaumont children and then thrown them off a cliff he'd have been charged for that and the Beaumont murders regardless of any suppression orders. Suppression doesn't mean suppression from the law. The fact he wasn't tells us it was never found to be true.Hahaha Someone demands the same standards of proof! You're trolling. Out of any of the children making claims from this time Andrew's is the only one that has been tested in court and has been proved. Maybe if the cops accented his statement this could have happens years earlier in that instance and for his current claims I'd like to see it in Court as well.
There are many children abused around the same time in SA by their own parents, scout masters, lawyers, doctors, judges, Munro's diving group of young boys and from Institutions. All of these claims are supported by first hand accounts, convictions, or the Mullighan Inquiry for children in State Institutions. Read the reported comments taht were tabled in Parliment.
There were many hundreds of children that died or disappeared from State Institutions in SA. There were many examples of sexual abuse by adults in the community of children in State Institutions. I agree Andrew's claim seem outrageous but three children dying out of nearly 200 is not huge.
It should be able to be easily proven or not. Mullighan needed to have a list of dates, ages and genders of children that died and causes of death for many to collate the Tables he had in the Deaths chapter. Where is the list Sprokets? Do some research and find it then you can get triggered and have a sook. There is no reason for this information to be suppressed like a lot of the Mulligan report, and it would be the first step to supporting or slapping down those particular claims that Andrew and Ruth have made.
Don't know, but from what I read Mulligan made a great effort to be thorough. It was the SA Labor Government who slapped the 80 year suppression order on it. It would be a start to support or dismiss Andrew's claims to check if there were similar aged and gender children that died not long after the Beamont's disappeared.and Mulligan picked Judge Liddy's best friend as his second man on that inquiry, coincidence?
Correct, but Andrew is asking for these allegations to be tested in Court and he is saying he has always told the truth. That is correct as far as has been proved through his sexual abuse claim against Munro, that the SA police refused to take his statement on for years, as well.Again I take issue with this. Yes Andrew had a proven claim in court.
It doesnt necessarily follow the other claims are also true
Yep.I've been reading this thread for a while and WTF!!
If they really wanted to find out what happened to the Beaumont children why didn't they publish this information sooner. I understand it was a year before they they mentioned the children had 1 pd note ... but seriously all that I can remember seeing that they bought was some pasties and a pie.
A finger bun is not the size of a finger and would be a good lunch for a child.
They would have had to have 2 finger buns, 2 pasties (or a pie) each and most of a large bottle of coke each!! And this isn't suspicious?? Why wasn't this in the papers if they wanted to find out what happened to them?
mate these guys have been at it for 90 pages, BlueE especially knows so much for somebody who isn’t from Adelaide and has no right to care about this. And WW’s amount of info baffles me.Because I don't believe everything anonymous internet people post? Ok.
If you care so much about who's been commenting here the longest go back to page two and see who was posting way back when, although in my opinion it doesn't matter how many posts you've made or when you became interested in the subject.mate these guys have been at it for 90 pages, BlueE especially knows so much for somebody who isn’t from Adelaide and has no right to care about this. And WW’s amount of info baffles me.
You can say you don’t believe these people but I do. They’ve put in the hard yards and seem to know more about what’s going on than some cops.
This thread does have much archived and important information that is based on police reports and various first hand witness accounts which can help to complete this puzzle. I think it's becoming clear that there is not just "a man" but clearly a groups of men who are identified by many independent witnesses.If you care so much about who's been commenting here the longest go back to page two and see who was posting way back when, although in my opinion it doesn't matter how many posts you've made or when you became interested in the subject.
You're entitled to believe what you want to believe. Me, I want more evidence than what we've been given here, which apart from MM's disenfranchised children's accounts, is virtually none. Oh, there's also the accounts from another couple of people given 50 years after the disappearance, one of which contradicts information given by independent witnesses at the actual time it occurred and who has admitted to being "messed up". Obviously the cops share my view and that has to carry more weight than internet posters who only have a fraction of the evidence at hand. I guess 'they have their man'.
EDIT: I see you think it's a police coverup...
Again when making assertions check the facts are correctAlso their mother suspiciously dying in a locked hospital room after being raped only 6 months after the Beaumont's disappeared and at 34 her death was ruled to be from natural causes!
Hyperbole. They must deal in facts not allegationsSA cops have disgraced themselves as far as not believing Andrew McIntyre's abuse claims and not taking his statement even though these claims were later proved and one of the many SA pedo's was jailed.
Is he saying it because he genuinely believes it or it might help his sentencing. This is the concern for me. If he wasnt involved then why not say something earlier?SA cops have a sexual abuse complainant against a 71 year old man John Pike who was extradited from SA to Qland on at least 60 historical sexual abuse claims. He was a friend on Munro and in the infamous "Scavengers" diving club. He says he knows what happened to the Beaumont children although he wasn't involved himself. Unknown whether SA cops have interviewed this man, but his account could correlate the other witnesses.
I understand why it took a year but it still has to be weighed against that time to come forward as to his recollection. He could have guessed. How many others came forward and guessed right or wrong?Vietnam Vet who was 19 at time has an account of the children and Munro who he identifies they were with that is identical description to the elderly lady (woman 3 in the archives). She was said to be the last person to see the children before they disappeared. He spoke to this elderly lady and her husband, and didn't know she had put in a witness report as he didn't realise that the children he saw and spoke to were the Beaumonts. He though the oldest girl he was speaking to was around 11 and all the news papers had photos of significantly younger children initially. He has details in his report that no one else could know and his identification of the car could be very important information but is not published.
No I do not think the police have covered themselves with glory but I do recognise the difficult job they have of separating the fantasists from those with real informationSA cops also didn't think it was important to publish that the children had one pound and which they spent on finger buns, pies and pastes and drinks for many people, even though the bakery was one of the last places they were confirmed being seen alive.
So if you think after 53 years SA cops have done a good job you have a more narrow focus than them and while they may have ulterior motives for the crime not to be solved I'm curious what your motives are?
Sorry I said months after the Beaumont children died, I should have said 11 months. Everything else I said was correct.
They were facts, proven true and the only reason SA police eventually charged Munro was that Andrew took his allegations to a Royal Commission who recommended charges.Hyperbole. They must deal in facts not allegations
Is he saying it because he genuinely believes it or it might help his sentencing. This is the concern for me. If he wasnt involved then why not say something earlier?
I understand why it took a year but it still has to be weighed against that time to come forward as to his recollection. He could have guessed. How many others came forward and guessed right or wrong?
No I do not think the police have covered themselves with glory but I do recognise the difficult job they have of separating the fantasists from those with real information
Those of us want this solved but neither do we want to waste time (like at Castalloy) listening to fantasists
According to you! You also stated the Vietnam vet identified Munro as the person with the kids when he didn't. His description is also different to that of the old couple who were actually there and have never mentioned this Vietnam vet.Sorry I said months after the Beaumont children died, I should have said 11 months. Everything else I said was correct.