Unsolved The Beaumont Children

[rubytoad]

Percy definitely looks like the identi-kit but it could also potentially match a crap load of other locals etc.

What day did the bakery lady give her statement saying they’d been there?

Could she have gotten her days mixed up at all? Perhaps they didn’t actually make it to the bakery that day and she’s remembering the day before etc. (I’ve done this, my memory is terrible). Maybe she purposely injected herself into the story with untrue statements. Unfortunately this isn’t unheard of. Not saying that’s the case though.

Also I seen someone say is it possible to take all 3 kids at once.

I think if it happened at the beach, and it was this supposed boyfriend of Janes, the younger two could have been told to stay back while they went for ‘alone’ time. The other two could have gone Jane after some time and stumbled on something untoward, forcing the abductor/killer to act upon the smaller 2.

Long shot I know and could be completely wrong. It’s just a thought.

There is something there. It’s just being able to see it after so so long



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[BonzaRam]

Percy definitely looks like the identi-kit but it could also potentially match a crap load of other locals etc.

What day did the bakery lady give her statement saying they’d been there?

Could she have gotten her days mixed up at all? Perhaps they didn’t actually make it to the bakery that day and she’s remembering the day before etc. (I’ve done this, my memory is terrible). Maybe she purposely injected herself into the story with untrue statements. Unfortunately this isn’t unheard of. Not saying that’s the case though.

Also I seen someone say is it possible to take all 3 kids at once.

I think if it happened at the beach, and it was this supposed boyfriend of Janes, the younger two could have been told to stay back while they went for ‘alone’ time. The other two could have gone Jane after some time and stumbled on something untoward, forcing the abductor/killer to act upon the smaller 2.

Long shot I know and could be completely wrong. It’s just a thought.

There is something there. It’s just being able to see it after so so long



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

What day did the bakery lady give her statement saying they’d been there?

Exact day i don't know for certain but seen as they were reported missing that day the police would have started tracing their movements immediately so it is a fair assumption she gave her statement within days of the disappearance so getting the wrong day is not likely. The details she gave came from a fresh memory. She was familiar with the children as they often went to the bakery, which is why she found the bought pie and 1 pound note odd. The other aspect of that is it is one of the only two confirmed sightings, the other being them playing at Colley Reserve.

Also I seen someone say is it possible to take all 3 kids at once.

Did they also say why they think it would be impossible?

 

[NSWCROW]

Evidence " lost "

 

[EyeMedia]

It's a long-shot that most here won't agree with, I'd say, but some of these abduction cases could tie-in more with trafficking of minors for on-going sex, rather than a quick, violent abduction and murder.

I'm not saying that this hypothesis necessarily applies to the Beaumont kids, but maybe in the Adelaide Oval case of the two innocent young girls.

In situations like that, you can't rule out the involvement of organized crime groups like the Mafia or other syndicates who might do such deeds. It isn't just a matter of looking at lone/local odd-bods, crazies and loner perverts. Some of these kids could've been transported far away or even overseas for sex trafficking, not just used and abused by local Adelaide pedo rings.

 

[newbie11]

Sketches on left -one is just softer shading for a more youthful appearance..

A drunk artist but the resemblance is undeniable…features are pretty much like smack on

 

[DropBearess]

I'm wondering how many air-raid shelters still existed in Glenelg in 1966? My grandparents owned a home in the inner suburbs of Adelaide circa 1920. It had a functional shelter until it was filled in 1964. I played in it as a child. Many house-holds didn't even fill them properly, preferring to cover them with corro and heaps of dirt. Glenelg is one of SA's oldest suburbs and most houses would have had shelters at some time. Lots of the larger houses were converted into 2-3 holiday flats in the 50s and 60s. Just a thought.....

 

[newbie11]

I'm wondering how many air-raid shelters still existed in Glenelg in 1966? My grandparents owned a home in the inner suburbs of Adelaide circa 1920. It had a functional shelter until it was filled in 1964. I played in it as a child. Many house-holds didn't even fill them properly, preferring to cover them with corro and heaps of dirt. Glenelg is one of SA's oldest suburbs and most houses would have had shelters at some time. Lots of the larger houses were converted into 2-3 holiday flats in the 50s and 60s. Just a thought.....

Dropbearess, you being familiar with the area during this time .. if you were to try and put yourself in the offenders shoes, you didn’t have a car; where do you think you might go? Is there a particular direction which would of been perhaps a quiet area maybe?

 

[johnymac1]

I'm wondering how many air-raid shelters still existed in Glenelg in 1966? My grandparents owned a home in the inner suburbs of Adelaide circa 1920. It had a functional shelter until it was filled in 1964. I played in it as a child. Many house-holds didn't even fill them properly, preferring to cover them with corro and heaps of dirt. Glenelg is one of SA's oldest suburbs and most houses would have had shelters at some time. Lots of the larger houses were converted into 2-3 holiday flats in the 50s and 60s. Just a thought.....

There is a public shelter at the north end of the Glenelg Oval. its still open as a museum, every third sunday, I have never been down into it.
its a long walk from the breach, the gates are always locked to it. I would imagine there are a few private shelters in the area and possibly one in the hospital in Glenelg South.

 

[Deni]

Ivé mentioned this several times in the past but i'll mention it again.
In the mid 60's to the early 70's myself and my family lived in Glenelg, directly across the road from Wenzels and the bus stop the kids got off on that day.
I say myself and my family but my mother, stepfather, and two older brothers lived there full time, myself and another brother lived with our dad in Elizabeth. Except we lived in the Terrace Housing every weekend and every school holidays, you can still see them on Google maps, they are now a backpackers.
We were there that day, but being 6 at the time I remember very little, my older brothers do though, although one passed away and i'm estranged from the other two now.
But in the past we have spoken about the children and that day, my eldest brother who was 16 at the time went back to our little place with some mates of his around lunch time, they were planning to go to Wenzels for lunch but there was a line up out the door, to many people for 3 hungry teenagers to wait for so they went elsewhere.
They saw nothing untoward, it was just another day, although there were double the crowds on the beach and on Colley Reserve. Apparently you couldn't swing a cat for picnicing familys at Colley..

 

[EyeMedia]

I think Tony Munro still has a case to answer in this disappearance, although those Beaumont kids are not his preferred type - he wanted teen boys or a few years younger than that, but not girls. But if he was grooming/abducting the kids for other perps, maybe, just maybe... he was around Glenelg Beach all the time and had a charming personality outwardly, or so I hear.

 

[newbie11]

I think Tony Munro still has a case to answer in this disappearance, although those Beaumont kids are not his preferred type - he wanted teen boys or a few years younger than that, but not girls. But if he was grooming/abducting the kids for other perps, maybe, just maybe... he was around Glenelg Beach all the time and had a charming personality outwardly, or so I hear.

Unlikely.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

If the orders cover victim's very sensitive accounts of sexual abuse, then for their dignity and well being I agree with them.



Do you believe the police wouldn't have had access and made their own investigations as abusers were named?

Hi.

No, most definitely not, they are very personal details, which no-one needs to know. I am speaking about the offenders named/identified.

If we look at the Inquest outcome, 434 offenders were named/identified. Mulligan referred 170 cases to police where 13 people were reported and ONLY 2 arrests - who I am sure people would know as being Marshall (childs tv presenter) and Symonds (Mother Goose). The numbers are a reflection on the police force at the time. It is poor to say the least, and the investigations were pushed by the victims. Police did not want to know about them.

So I believe the names of the offenders should released NOT the survivors or specific details. Anyone on the report that has died - there is no problem naming them. With the ones who were reported - they should be named. Anyone dealing with a child in this way should be named and shamed.

I am sure most have heard of Ki Meekins, who was a part of the welfare system, has released a book on his experiences in the system and on the streets. He successfully took on the SA Government and won, although last time I heard, they still have not paid him compensation awarded by the court. If you get an opportunity, it is a hard read, but it paints the picture of Adelaide at the time, as still is.

I believe that police at the time did what they had to do to tick off the list. Just going through the motions when needed to. Don't get me wrong, some were honest in their policing role, others were not. They turned their backs on so many situations in Adelaide. The police knew about Veale Gardens, they knew what happened and that it involved minors. Veale Gardens was so popular, they had a caravan that sold milk and the paper for the people leaving there. Police knew and did nothing. They knew the regulars and they knew the important players too. Mother Goose by his own account, was well known to police for hanging around. They turned their backs on the children and allowed it to happen, just as the welfare system did.

A police investigation will go which way they want it to go. Although, today's police are being held more accountable with the use of body cams etc, but these can be turned on and off as needed. It's happened to me.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Yeah?
My first and second comments are in relation to 2 entirely seperate enquires, both have no suppression orders. The 28 names list I thought I’d mention just because I’ve heard people talk about over and over saying that the Government supposedly had suppressed ect.ect..Is also not true . a statement that’s signed: anonymous. For the obvious reasons, is not creditable.
There was amendments to the act in order to better protect the victims, victims are automatically afforded with anonymity ( exactly how it should be)
What’s there, is there. I don’t think even in 200 years the victims statements should ever be released, in my personal opinion, I don’t think it’s anybody’s business

Hi. There are details and 'Part B' to all of these Inquiries which have suppression orders on. If the reports didn't have them, where are the perps names? What we are being given as the public are basic details and the list of Recommendations. The Mulligan recommendations were so wonderfully implemented and works a treat - in fact - they employed and covered up Shannon McCoole so that's worked well - NOT.

Yes, there have been amendments and that has of course been for the better. I dont believe any survivor should be identified nor should the details be released, unless they give permission, such as Ki Meekins who has done this, but in a book.

No, I don't think it is anyone's business either - but who the paedophile is (naming the offender) is everyone's business1

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Sorry I had a hard time trying understand all that? It all became just very confusing?

Sorry, Im learning to quote etc here, the person replied to my first post, took my post popped their comments/questions down, then I answered. I see it can be confusing.

 

[Kurve]

So I believe the names of the offenders should released NOT the survivors or specific details. Anyone on the report that has died - there is no problem naming them. With the ones who were reported - they should be named. Anyone dealing with a child in this way should be named and shamed.

If naming and shaming were to involve raising social media campaigns to out people and drawing vigilante type characters with very little evidence against a possibly innocent person, then I don't agree their names should be made public.

I am sure most have heard of Ki Meekins

I have read the book.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

“It was put to me they have enough to know he wasn't in Adelaide on the 26th but lack the evidence to take him off the suspect list.”

Just want to make sure I’m not misinterpreting what you mean by this; are you able to elaborate any further or perhaps explain more what you mean?
If they have enough to know - that means that they have enough evidence and can prove that he wasn’t in Adelaide on the 26th?
Vicpol are not responsible for the BC case, the Beaumont case is out of their jurisdiction. Irregardless, whether SAPOL or VICPOL have evidence and can prove that Percy was not in Adelaide during the relevant time then they can’t also lack the evidence to remove him from the suspect list. Doesn’t make sense..
Your colleague might have misunderstood something or was telling you fibs

Maybe telling fibs? Possible. Not much point in doing that though. I know Vicpol aren't responsible, but states do share intelligence. My understanding is they were backgrounding Percy, placed him in the vicinity of most crimes, except the BC case. I was told they had been to Adelaide, but there is not 100% proof as nothing can be confirmed, and the caravan holidays watching Regattas, the one held in SA was not on or close to the 25th of Jan 1966 either, which doesn't fit the timeline either.

You don't have to take my information or opinion if you don't wish to, no pressure.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

There has never been an inquest into the missing Beaumont children, even though it must be assumed they are deceased and probably were not long after they went missing. This is strange given the magnitude of the case file. The horse has bolted long ago, but l believe if an inquest was held now, a reasonable finding would be that Percy was most likely responsible.

I believe the Adelaide Oval abductions were unrelated and the likely culprit was Arthur
Brown. Percy was incarcerated at the time.

Ever since Percy and Brown were apprehended, there have been no more abductions and/or deaths of more than one child at the same time in nearly 50 years. Given the 9 year time frame (1965-1973) of Wanda, BC, Touhy & Spiller, Mackay sisters and Gordon/Ratcliffe, l think the mysteries are over.

I agree it should have been done a long time ago. I believe it can still give answers. I've spoken to the Coroners Office in detail about this, the reason why we won't ever get an inquiry - SAPol need to refer the case to them because they have called the case "an on-going active investigation". Until SAPol open their books, it won't go anywhere.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Evidence " lost "

Funny that isn't it, many cases seem to lose or destroy evidence nation wide. I wonder how many crimes with 'lost' evidence could have been solved, particularly with the advances in DNA technology.

 

[jason_recliner]

Hi. There are details and 'Part B' to all of these Inquiries which have suppression orders on. If the reports didn't have them, where are the perps names? What we are being given as the public are basic details and the list of Recommendations. The Mulligan recommendations were so wonderfully implemented and works a treat - in fact - they employed and covered up Shannon McCoole so that's worked well - NOT.

Yes, there have been amendments and that has of course been for the better. I dont believe any survivor should be identified nor should the details be released, unless they give permission, such as Ki Meekins who has done this, but in a book.

No, I don't think it is anyone's business either - but who the paedophile is (naming the offender) is everyone's business1

So we should know the names of everybody accused of crimes against children regardless of whether they have been found guilty? What could possibly go wrong?

 

[newbie11]

Hi.

No, most definitely not, they are very personal details, which no-one needs to know. I am speaking about the offenders named/identified.

If we look at the Inquest outcome, 434 offenders were named/identified. Mulligan referred 170 cases to police where 13 people were reported and ONLY 2 arrests - who I am sure people would know as being Marshall (childs tv presenter) and Symonds (Mother Goose). The numbers are a reflection on the police force at the time. It is poor to say the least, and the investigations were pushed by the victims. Police did not want to know about them.

So I believe the names of the offenders should released NOT the survivors or specific details. Anyone on the report that has died - there is no problem naming them. With the ones who were reported - they should be named. Anyone dealing with a child in this way should be named and shamed.

I am sure most have heard of Ki Meekins, who was a part of the welfare system, has released a book on his experiences in the system and on the streets. He successfully took on the SA Government and won, although last time I heard, they still have not paid him compensation awarded by the court. If you get an opportunity, it is a hard read, but it paints the picture of Adelaide at the time, as still is.

I believe that police at the time did what they had to do to tick off the list. Just going through the motions when needed to. Don't get me wrong, some were honest in their policing role, others were not. They turned their backs on so many situations in Adelaide. The police knew about Veale Gardens, they knew what happened and that it involved minors. Veale Gardens was so popular, they had a caravan that sold milk and the paper for the people leaving there. Police knew and did nothing. They knew the regulars and they knew the important players too. Mother Goose by his own account, was well known to police for hanging around. They turned their backs on the children and allowed it to happen, just as the welfare system did.

A police investigation will go which way they want it to go. Although, today's police are being held more accountable with the use of body cams etc, but these can be turned on and off as needed. It's happened to me.

How do they get the offenders name?

From the witness statement.

You can’t just cut and chop out parts of a persons witness statement, much of it will contain identifying information. There will be victims who continue to live terrified of reprisal by their abuser(s)- we want people to be able to share their story and feel safe, but more importantly, to share their story and be safe.

So.. what do you do? The only thing that you can do -you’ve got to cover ALL bases.

If that means that nosy members of public don’t get to know the offenders names, so be it.

I believe everyone has the right to a fair and equal trial, and yes, unfortunately, that does also have to include the lowest levels forms of society- pedophiles, sex offenders ect..
You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Macka_321]

Andrew at it again

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Hmm

At the time Percy did not have a car nor a licence. My point is, there should be more confirmed sightings (and then more detailed descriptions about the poi) if public transport was used - in my opinion.

Many people keep mentioning a car and I am not sure why, a car might be handy to have but not necessary, especially if you are not going far, walking distance. We have a witness statement saying they saw the children walking in the direction of their home, where exactly is this supposed car coming into it?

How would you describe a surfie type? Do they need to be carrying a surfboard?

"The suspect was described as in his 30s with light brown, short swept-back hair parted on the left side, a thin face and clean-shaven. He was suntanned and wearing blue bathers with a white stripe down the side.

And I make the assumption based on facts I know. The BC perp had groomed them prior to that day or the perp was known and trusted by the children or they may have been a trusted community figure, such as a police officer, postie etc.

Based on facts?, you have 3 "ors" there in (which one is it?) amongst an assumption that they were groomed in the days leading up to their disappearance, how do you know that for a fact when in another breath you state this "Yes I have read the report and still today it is easy for children to be lured away."

We have a neighbour recalling he once flew to Adelaide, yet his brother said they drove,

Maybe he had been here at least twice? Once by plane and once by car, which on which date would be the real question, but either way if he was here how he got he is not that relevant. What he did whilst here is.

Percy - age preference ? What is his age preference?

Those younger than him because he can overpower them, a coward in other words.

"Interestingly again, the Henley Beach Club colours are blue and a white stipe."

Ummm this is irrelevant, his colors would be from his club not a club he would be competing against. If he was competing in a regatta then he/they didn't fly here with the boat...

I had the same issues trying to find a regatta close to Australia Day in Adelaide in 1966. I haven't explored other events at regattas back then yet though. Rowing events being one of them.

"no-one has ever said they went a few times or often, but only once."

I have not seen anything that says he/they only went to Adelaide once but i have read that his father travelled to regattas all over the country. It can be assumed he had an events program he followed ever year rather than just go to each regatta just once. Having said that it could also be that could put Percy here at earlier dates which could have given him more familiarity with the area.

It's mind boggling to me, why it took this lady so long to come forward with what she had witnessed.

Not me, it happens all the time, just listen to few cold case podcasts.

I was working for a Government Department in 2019 and a colleague's cousin was part of the VicPol investigation team. It was put to me they have enough to know he wasn't in Adelaide on the 26th but lack the evidence to take him off the suspect list.

see newbie11's post above.

I'll try to dot point my response so others don't get confused.

- People are throwing ideas about a mode of transport around the field, that's all. No-one is definitively saying how they left the beach, just throwing ideas into the arena. Obviously with Percy the question would be did he have access to a car and whether he had a licence at the time, due to his age. All are relevant questions worthy of being asked.

- Not going to bother answering this - put out a general question to the forum and ask others opinions.

- Perhaps you should re-read. The general consensus is that grooming on some level had taken place, due to witness statements noting they were comfortable around this person and seemed like they knew him. Yet there are also some in the community, such as a police officer/postie etc, may have already had their trust and may have not needed to groom them as he/she could have been doing that for weeks beforehand.

- In my next breath I say **** friend, you need to pull back on your horsey a bit. In that instance, I said that I had read that report and that unfortunately, still today it is easy for children/people to be lured away. Sorry, I believe this is still true today. However, I believe we are speaking about the BC case? If that is right, in my opinion there was grooming involved with these children and I do not believe they would have just walked away with this person/people knowing them for a few hours only.

- Keep going about the suspect description. IN MY OPINION it does not describe Percy and does not fit into the descriptions of Percy in the Wanda case or the Redston case. Trove have descriptions in articles of who they were looking for and described as a teen (this was a sept 66 article). We also know from the Wanda case, Percy couldn't have been the athletic or strong as there was evidence of dragging and stopping indicating Percy was physically struggling to move the bodies as they had time to pool blood at intervals. In 65 he was in high school and there is a school photo on here of him which I don't believe that is the description he fits.

- School holidays 17 Dec - 2 Feb 66. Henley Yacht Club (Blue & White club colours) Officially opened 4th Dec 1965. Sailing regatta held at Glenelg due to safety issues at HBYC. Regatta started 28th of Dec 1965 and finished up 11th of Jan 1966.

- It remains that there is no record or recollection of the Percy family being in Glenelg at that time or anything. He was still at home and was with his parents, who kept a close eye on him in general because of his behaviour. IF in 1965/66 Percy/s were in Glenelg, consider the above dates. Would they continue to stay for another 2 weeks?

- I am aware how some witnesses do not come forward at the time and there are multiple reasons as to why that may be. If you go back in the archives there are photos of the searches, all the articles, the fuss in general being made, everyday people were searching. It was a topic then as much as it is now and a line drawn in the sand that changed the way people lived - a very significant marker in life for many Adelaideans because of what happened on this day.
I find it strange that a woman who saw the missing children with a man, going into an abandoned house on the same day as the children disappeared with people actively in the area and surrounds looking for anything related to the children by the next morning. TV cameras, reporters, police, were everywhere, massive line ups at the police station, she did not think that 2 girls and a boy matching their ages with a man going into an abandoned building was anything to report? I am not saying that this did not happen, we don't have any details on this so it is impossible to know if the line was investigated and what came of it. With reporting so late, without any reasoning for not doing so earlier, it makes you think was this a red herring?

- And then see response to newbie above/below wherever it went.

 

[Kurve]

Andrew at it again

A few weeks ago, Andrew McIntyre made a lengthy facebook post on his page claiming that his sister Ruth solved the Somerton Man mystery years ago, he was so adamant.

The genealogists have now found out who the Somerton Man is and Andrew has deleted his post.

CORRECTION: Andrew's video is still there where he claims Somerton Man mystery was solved by his family. They were wrong.

 

[newbie11]

Andrew at it again

Who’s responsible for allowing him to be seated in a spinny chair? You’re fired.

At the end.. “I’m stating that AM was involved with my father in murdering the BC… … I know this by blood on my father’s clothes, blood in AM’s car, AM’s frantic, frantic ..uh/um condition on the day .. and uhhh ..SAPOL knows all about it”
So umm.. yeah.. well ..There ya have it folks


just going to throw it out there.. perhaps the biggest tell-tale clue of a murder? Oh, the dead bodies of 3 children in the boot of a car? Must’ve forgot.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

If naming and shaming were to involve raising social media campaigns to out people and drawing vigilante type characters with very little evidence against a possibly innocent person, then I don't agree their names should be made public.



I have read the book.

Naming and shaming is not about forming vigilante groups or movements, it's about being informed so we can better protect ourselves and our children. What some people choose to do with information they get is up to them. They are legally liable. Perhaps some of the problem with the MI is that the referrals made to police where perhaps not correctly dealt with, which may be why there was minimal action taken. Whilst under normal circumstances, I wouldn't say name and shame people who have been reported by police for simple offences - but these kind of reports are for offences and/or conduct against children - either way it's wrong and they should be named so we know who is out there. If your neighbour was loitering around public toilet blocks approaching children - would you want to know he/she has been reported - or do you let them to continue to be unknown?

When dealing with anyone who is cautioned, warned or otherwise of offences against children should be named. They are a risk.