The Beaumont Children

[Adam Went]

Hi Anna,

Well, that sounds similar to the Phipps theory with his taking their handbag with the money for the bus fare in it, then reappearing as the "saviour". I'm just not sure about it. If someone had taken their money at the beach, that means they would have had no money to buy their lunch either. In this event, I would think that Jane probably would have decided to walk home earlier, and have something for lunch when they got home. She knew about stranger danger. Also, Arnna was a little younger but may still have been mature enough to calm Jane down in that sort of situation. It's hard to say without knowing more about them and how they might react. Still, it brings us back around to the question of where did that one pound note come from?

Yeah, the permissions on Youtube are weird for sure - the link I was trying to get you before was a segment from a show called "Crime Investigation Australia" that was around a few years ago. It may have something to do with the copyright on that series, perhaps. Anyway, i've had another look on Youtube and found the same episode elsewhere - try these ones out and hopefully one of them might work for you (you just might need to skip other segments to get to the Beaumont case, that's all - it shares an episode with the Wanda Beach murders):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcP0pFpnJIY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWq4SACaJ2g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIGqOD0Q9ec

Could it be possible that the hole was dug with the intention of it being the burial place of the children but then there was a change of plan? All that was found in there was rubbish and animal bones. Could be that Phipps just wanted to get rid of some excess garbage at home, or even just that he wanted to be in that position of power watching the boys work even though the task was pointless. Still, it's odd that it was at exactly the same time as the children disappeared. I think it could be worthwhile asking any employees of Castalloy from the time, and definitely think it's worthwhile excavating the whole site.

That's interesting regarding your own experiences with the psychic world! I do think there's definitely a place for it, i've watched some of those psychic shows like "The One" with great interest over the years. What about Robert James Lees in the JTR case? Still, it's probably one of those things that is subjective to each case. I think Croiset genuinely had good intentions at heart, but the end result probably wasn't so helpful - Jim Beaumont himself said that he appreciated what Croiset was trying to do, but he wasn't giving up on the idea that his children were still alive. In regards to the cave / dirt floor which I think might have been Croiset's first impression, I wonder if that makes the sinkhole theory more plausible?

I think you're right in that The Man might have masqueraded as a friend of the family or similar. Given that the children lived so close to the beach, could they have been distracted for long? And once they realised what was happening, what then? In theory, in that situation you've got three children vs. one adult - I don't think vehicles in 1966 commonly had central locking or childproof locks, etc? One or more of them might have made a break for it and it could have gone horribly wrong. Unless of course, they had been sedated as Tania suggested before or there was other people involved by that point. But I think it's just as likely, especially if the abduction was part of a paedophile ring, that the children might have willingly got into the car and then The Man said something like "I've just got to call into a friends house quickly on the way. It won't take long, bring your lunch in with you so you don't spill it in the car" - once they were in that position, they would have been totally vulnerable. Doesn't bear thinking about really does it?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tania Edwards]

I have the case at #4 on my Top Australia Classic Unsolved Murder List after 1-Gatton, 2-Taman Shud and 3-Shirley Collins then ahead of 5-Wanda Beach.

Hi Stan
I have heard of and read about the cases you listed except for Shirley Collins. I did a Google search which didn't come up with much and also a search on TROVE. The Australian newspapers carried the story regularly through 1953/54 period. Police efforts were amazing. Do you have any theories of your own about this case? Do you have any recommended reading/sources about this case?


t

[Tania Edwards]

Hi, Adam:

I don't think Jane would have asked assistance from someone at the beach but if she suddenly knew her purse/coins were taken she may have been suddenly a bit disoriented. Some predatory creeps have various ways to make their victims feel helpless and vulnerable. Maybe Jane even used a mild swear word and blurted, "Who took our money?" Of course The Man would be conveniently within ear shot.

The first video you posted--I think--said the 3:00 PM sighting by the postman was dependent upon whether he was beginning his round or ending it. It seems he may have eventually decided it was the beginning of his route, thus nearer 12:00 PM.

I would love to see the video that said the children waited for the man outside the changing rooms. I did not find that anywhere. (I do not understand international copyrights. Some of it eventually becomes available. Some of it doesn't make sense. I enjoy a Swedish opera singer and I can get everything he has done but not his rendition of the Christmas song Holy Night/Helga Natt! THAT is copyrighted and unavailable in the U.S. What the heck?)

It looked like the factory complex was huge and the hole was near the fence. I just don't think the hole has anything to do with the case. Maybe it was noticed back then and those who noticed it got satisfactory answers. If there was a pedophile ring, maybe the hole had a nefarious intention but was never used and simply filled in. Note the recent digs have found previously disturbed ground but basically NOTHING otherwise.

I think clairvoyance works because there is another dimension or Other Side. Occasionally some people can cross over and come back. Some people seem to be born in a state where they go back and forth and even as children they make amazing predictions. Then maybe they become professional or they try too hard. I think Croiset wanted to help very much and the tragedy of the case caused him to try too hard.

I crossed over to the Other Side twice in my life, both due to the traumatic deaths of friends. The last one was a murder which I saw from my friend's perspective. Therefore I knew things the police withheld for years though I was hundreds of miles away. These impressions are not like watching a video. They come and go. I feel Croiset's idea of a "cave" with a dirt floor may be fairly accurate. I do a little remote viewing and am fairly accurate on some things but the important thing is the impressions must come and they cannot be forced no matter the importance or desire to see. If that was understood there would probably be no professional clairvoyants. Anyway, that is my opinion. Unfortunately Croiset's appearance devolved into a circus atmosphere in the case.

There was another case of two small school girls taken though only one was wanted. Both were killed and molested. I think the perpetrator was Percy?

It is just so strange, multiple children being taken and THREE! WOW! What do they say about three is a crowd?

I felt like discounting the reports of Jane allowing The Man to help her dress at the beach. First, the kids were not wearing many clothes and how hard is it to pull up shorts? One report was more specific and said The Man helped pull up Jane's shorts. That is a thing a girl would allow a family member to do. I can't imagine being OK with a stranger doing that for me at that age. I was a bit timid so might have allowed it but afterward I would have wanted to get away from that person.

(I wonder if The Man masqueraded as a family member? Dad's/ Mum's long lost cousin, brother...surprise, don't tell anyone... Something? A few simple questions to a child can elicit lots of information, enough to build a believable false story.)

Perhaps in the case we could see help dressing as a bit of grooming. Maybe Jane was the object The Man wanted and it was yet another step that she would allow him to assist her in dressing. (Not to mention, some of these creeps think children--even babies--"WANT" them! Allowing help with dressing could make some of these creeps think it was a two way relationship.)

Like I suggested, if the kids were invited into an automobile, they had cakes and sodas to distract themselves with, perhaps long enough for the driver to definitely head away from their home base. At that point, what could the kids do?

Hi Anna


I am really interested in your personal experience of crossing over. This is not really the thread to explore it so would you mind if I Pm you to discuss it further?


t

[Anna Morris]

Hi Anna


I am really interested in your personal experience of crossing over. This is not really the thread to explore it so would you mind if I Pm you to discuss it further?


t

I prefer email since I am not real good with the PM function here=> [email protected]

[Anna Morris]

I watched a few more videos on this case and did hear about the children waiting near the changing room. Interesting.

I don't think The Man was middle aged. People make mistakes on ages and I wonder if we have more trouble with this as we get older. It was an elderly woman who gave some of this information. I am certainly not elderly but I made a couple BIG mistakes recently in real life trying to estimate age. I used to be real good at that.

I don't think The Man was middle aged because of the way he played with the kids, snapping towels in the sprinklers. Reports say he played with them, etc. I could imagine this in a man through his twenties, maybe early thirties, but not actual middle age, say forties. Not the factory man. I can't imagine him playing like a child and that was what it was, The Man played like a child.

There are a couple individual efforts on youtube; one is done by Caitlin Rose and the other by Harmony Nice who has interesting nose jewellery. One or both of these ladies mentioned that at the time of the disappearance it was wondered if the kids knew The Man from some place or time past but family could not put anything together so this angle was dropped.

I had wondered about that too, if The Man was someone the children--or at least Jane--had seen/known peripherally, maybe at school. A janitor's helper, a delivery man, someone who would not be known by name or title but who would have made an impression of teasing, joking, winking, being playful. Someone who had done something at the school but who was not a regular employee. (I think it was Percy who snatched two little girls, who was a carpenter at a school. He is mentioned in connexion with the Beaumonts but I don't think he is the abductor.)

Perhaps witness descriptions of The Man as middle aged with athletic build blocked recognition. Perhaps The Man was in his mid-twenties and merely appeared thin and not athletic when fully clothed. A well developed body might imply a slightly older age than reality.

One of the videos previously mentioned went into detail about the children being shy with strangers. So the incident of The Man helping them pull on their shorts, to me, indicates past experience with this man that made them comfortable with his familiarity. It would make sense if at least Jane kind knew him at a distance for a longer time than just one or two days at the beach. I keep thinking of school. In my time, people associated with school always seemed to be people you trusted, in or out of school.

If it is true that there were missing coins and that the children waited outside the changing room, it seems The Man may have gotten confidence and thus control with two commodities, money and time. However I am having trouble finding a good source that says there were missing coins or purse. This seems to be taken for granted in the story because Jane used a one pound note at the bakeshop. I thought maybe missing coins would have led to conversation with The Man on the beach. If something goes missing in a public place we might turn to those nearest and ask, "Did you see anything?"

Isn't it just as possible there were no missing coins but The Man said something like, "I'm hungry, how about you... here, take this, get me something and something for yourselves?"

I do not think missing coins had anything to do with missing the 12:00 bus. IMO The Man distracted the children till they missed the bus thus managing the commodity of time. Might we assume the kids wanted to play at the beach as long as possible, then get lunch and catch the bus? By distracting with a one pound note, a delivery of a meat pie, etc. missing the 12:00 bus could easily be managed. True, there was another bus and the children could walk home but the severe heat might have encouraged accepting a ride.

It is hard to believe the children felt such familiarity with this man, yet Jane said the meat pie was for The Man, which is a very distant reference. If the man had a very odd name, like Bevan Spencer von Einem, perhaps the kids could not remember it, were embarrassed that they could not and so such a person would become The Man. I don't think von Einem did it either but he is a good example to use.

[Stan Reid]

Hi Stan
I have heard of and read about the cases you listed except for Shirley Collins. I did a Google search which didn't come up with much and also a search on TROVE. The Australian newspapers carried the story regularly through 1953/54 period. Police efforts were amazing. Do you have any theories of your own about this case? Do you have any recommended reading/sources about this case?

Hi Tania:

Sorry but I don't know of much on the murder except what's on Google. The first I heard of the case was in crime writer Colin Wilson's top 10 unsolved murders list in the Book of Lists II back around 1980. Wilson had it at #9 on his worldwide list and referred to the crime as "an Australian equivalent of the Black Dahlia murder". I was surprised when I saw her picture that she looked rather mature for her age but who knows if that meant anything. The case is baffling so I don't have any theories regarding a suspect. Her date was pretty much cleared by police and I think they were right.

[Adam Went]

Hi all,

Tania:

I'm so disappointed that 1960-1980 isn't available on Trove yet, we're missing the crucial years! Might have to go old school and browse the microfilm at the library!

Anna:

This may or may not have any bearing on the case, but i've done a few more checks and it seems that Australia Day 1966 was NOT a public holiday. These days, Australia Day is a public holiday even if it falls during the week, but in 1966 the holiday apparently carried over to the weekend (i.e. a "long weekend"). So that being the case, for most it would have been a normal working day. That means that - as seems fitting, from the witness statements - the majority of people on the beach in the middle of the day on the day the Beaumont children went missing would have been students / school children still on their summer holidays, tourists, elderly people / retirees and idle / unemployed people.

Is this another cross against the likelihood of Harry Phipps as a suspect? Why wasn't he at work in his office at Castalloy? Again I come back to the employees - do any of them remember him disappearing on that day or doing anything out of character? Perhaps quite a long bow to draw.

So you could well be right that The Man was a student of some sort himself. Reading through some of the interviews with Nancy, one thing she says repeatedly is that she just can't believe that Jane, who was quite a shy girl, would allow a total stranger to dress her as the elderly witnesses described. I tend to agree with this. So what does that mean? Did the witness see a different group of children? Was she mistaken in what she saw? Or did Jane know The Man? It creates a whole new series of questions. I think the examples you use are good though - he may not have been someone necessarily close to the family, but just somebody that the children knew from being around the neighbourhood. That could also be why he was referred to in the bakery as just The Man.

I've started reading the book by Michael Madigan on the case, and even though i'm only about a quarter of the way through it, there's already been some interesting points made. The first is that many witnesses saw a man with a similar description lurking around the beach and watching children for several days leading up to the disappearance of the Beaumont's - if this is true, surely it lends itself to being more of a planned abduction and looking for the right victims rather than being an opportunistic one?

There's also a bit of an issue with times. Nancy said that she originally planned to take the children to the beach herself once she had finished her household jobs for the day, but they were so eager to get going that she allowed them to go on the 8.35 am bus. However, the bus driver claimed that he had picked them up on the 10.10 am bus. Nancy finished her jobs and went to visit a friend, then returned to the bus stop at noon intending to meet her children there, but of course they weren't there. She wasn't too concerned at that point, it was only when they hadn't appeared by mid-afternoon and Jim returned from his work trip out of town that the panic really set in. As for the postman, he changed his story constantly from having the sighting anywhere between noon and 3.00 pm.

Likewise, the witnesses who saw the children with The Man were all around lunch time - when, in theory, the children should have probably already been getting on the bus back home. Does this show that they had already arranged another way home? If they were late, why did they still seem so playful - was Jane not concerned about getting home late and worrying her mother? How were they keeping the time, did Jane have a watch or something in the bag with their money, and the bag went missing? Did Jane or perhaps even Arnna (apparently much more of an extrovert than Jane) approach The Man and ask for the time? It all comes back to your point about distracting the children, Anna, making them late for the bus and leaving them with little option unless they wanted to be late home - I think you're spot on.

It's interesting to note that Jim and some police officers returned to the beach around midnight, and apparently the beach was still teeming with thousands of people even then - it really was like looking for a needle in a haystack.


Anyway, i'll keep reading and see what else is of interest. It's actually a really good read - i've downloaded it onto my Kindle. Not sure if you have one of those or not, Anna, but if you can get it, it's only a few dollars and is quite detailed - I think you'd enjoy the read! It's called "The Missing Beaumont Children: 50 Years of Mystery and Misery" by Michael Madigan. Here's the link to it on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Missing-Beaumont-Children-Mystery-Misery-ebook/dp/B019BSOKRK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518765851&sr=8-1&keywords=michael+madigan+the+beaumont+children

Cheers,
Adam.

[Anna Morris]

Hi Adam,

I thought some source said there was a publicly visible clock at the beach? Unlikely the children would have had a watch. That was a big thing here in 1966, to have a watch.

Mrs. Beaumont was so distraught after everything that it is said she had trouble giving correct information. Witnesses said the children arrived by bus to the beach at 8:45. It wouldn't make much sense if they got there at 10:45, almost 11:00, with plans to play on the beach, get lunch and go home on the 12:00 bus.

One source said the postman's evidence is based on whether he was starting or ending his round. Supposedly it has been settled that he was beginning his round and that would be near 12:00. (People think differently. I would be like the postman and fix times by activities. I complain that the person I take care of "speaks literal" instead of English. Everything must be exact; right, left, up, down, correct times, etc. I think there are two different ways to think and remember. I think like the postman seemed to think.)

Would Jane have been unduly worried if she missed the 12:00 bus? Her mother wasn't that worried when the 12:00 bus passed. The bus ran every hour and they could walk home but for the excessive heat.

That is interesting that The Man seemed to be hanging around, maybe for days. That again implies he was from out of town and unlikely to be recognised by locals. His biggest risk would have been people who knew him also being on holiday at that beach. Again this argues against factory man who seems to have had a kinky life to say the least. If he was recognised with children who disappeared, any subsequent investigation could expose things in his life he didn't want exposed.

One source said the hut where the man changed clothes was the "men's" changing huts. Personally, at Jane's age, I would have felt uncomfortable waiting outside something like a man's locker room, if the information is correct. I wonder how much changing The Man had to do. It seems like pulling shorts and shirt over bathing trunks would be all that was needed.

It bothers me that there were so many vicious predators in and out of that area at that time and for a number of years to come. I keep wondering if they knew each other, if they were some sort of group--I don't know if we would call it a ring exactly--who shared information, maybe tried to out-do each other in escapades. Snatching three children is notable indeed.

I think it is worthwhile considering the abduction from the Adelaide Oval in 1973 in connexion with the Beaumont children. The composites are very similar but the method of operation was sloppy, though successful at the Oval. It appears that man told the children he was trying to get a cat out from under the bleachers. Then he grabbed the four year old and the 11 year old followed, kicking and hitting him. I don't know why no one did anything. (I still find Arthur Hart to be interesting.)

Like I said before I think it is notable that The Man played with the children almost like he was another kid. I think that really points to The Man being younger than 30 and used to playing with children. I think he developed a relationship with the kids where he could manipulate a scenario in the way kids tell stories. What if nothing bad had happened, what would Jane have told her mother? This happened and then this happened and this happened and so....

I don't know why, but the word "lifeguard" has kept coming into my mind since beginning to read this story. I don't know if this is an impression or just a matter of reasoning because of the beach but this word comes unbidden into my head when I think of the story. Apparently there were not lifeguards at the beach? I think this because the water was severely searched for bodies and no lifeguard was ever mentioned. (Working it through my mind, I can visualize the thin, athletic looking man in bathing trunks sitting on a pedestal, showing off his body while scanning the beach somewhere, not necessarily Glenelg Beach. But that is just my mind consciously working.)

Read that book carefully and try to figure out the source for missing/stolen coins/purse. I cannot find anything but that this was surmised because the one pound note was used to purchase lunch. I do not hear of anyone with direct knowledge that there were any missing coins. (If this part never happened, I would suggest The Man asked Jane to get lunch for him, and something for them, maybe even keep the change, if any. That wouldn't matter if the kids weren't coming home. Thrifty, capable Jane could have been proud of a small profit in keeping their own coins and getting lunch anyway.)

Thanks for the link. I'll see what I can do.

[Tania Edwards]

Hi Tania:

Sorry but I don't know of much on the murder except what's on Google. The first I heard of the case was in crime writer Colin Wilson's top 10 unsolved murders list in the Book of Lists II back around 1980. Wilson had it at #9 on his worldwide list and referred to the crime as "an Australian equivalent of the Black Dahlia murder". I was surprised when I saw her picture that she looked rather mature for her age but who knows if that meant anything. The case is baffling so I don't have any theories regarding a suspect. Her date was pretty much cleared by police and I think they were right.

Stan
Thanks for replying. I too was very surprised when I saw Shirley's photo. She looks a lot older. Maybe it's the hairstyle and fashion. It really is a bizarre and brutal case. (It doesn't really compare to the Black Dahlia)There is no direct mention of sexual assault. I wonder what happened between the time she left on Saturday evening and the time she was killed, Monday around midnight or so. I agree that her date had nothing to do with it. I was thinking that perhaps it may have been a regularish customer at her workplace. Perhaps overheard her talking about the party and arrangements.


t

[Anna Morris]

Here is a picture of Stanley Arthur Hart. I have been calling him Arthur Hart for some reason. This is my suspect for the Beaumont children and Adelaide Oval abductions. (He has a particularly pointed and delicate chin for a man. That could be why the composites show a long, thin, delicate face.)

I was getting the name confused with Arthur Stanley Brown. (He was too old, IMO.) It is amazing how four or five of the worst child predators seem to be able to be placed in Adelaide at the important times. Did they travel in a group? It is even possible to tie these creeps together through a sale of property from one creep to Von Einem's mother Thora. (In JtR studies we can hardly prove even one suspect was in London on relevant dates.)

Hart makes a lot of sense. As I understand the information he lived in Adelaide and was "assisted" [sic] in moving north because of his continuing pedophilic acts in Adelaide. Perhaps he was coming to the end of being tolerated when he spied the Beaumont children. Just a thought.

I did find the origin of the missing coin/money issue. The Man was said to have asked the elderly couple and some other nearby people if they had seen anyone messing with "their"/ "our" stuff. If he planned an abduction, why would he call attention to himself? Maybe it was part of the scenario that money had been taken? Maybe the elderly couple were watching him too closely and he wanted to make it sound like he and the children were a group, if "our stuff" is a correct report.

It makes sense to me that the children were removed from the area in a car but then I reconsider the 40 degree C temperature. Air conditioning was uncommon in cars in the U.S. at the time. When temperatures could go so high in the area, maybe it was more common in Australia? If not, how about a car trip in that temperature?

We discussed if Australia Day was a major holiday at the time. It was said that people did not have time off from work. But a number of sources on this case note that the children were in the middle of the "long summer school holiday." (Hard for me to think of the "summer" holiday in January but it makes sense. I bet people in Australia don't understand the holiday song, 'I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas'? ;-))

If Hart did both crimes mentioned he must have had a way to hide remains. He had property available to him.

There are a couple well researched podcasts on the case that I would assume are American in origin. One is 'True Crime Brewery'. One of these offered statistics about child kidnapping. Something like 49% is family, 27% is acquaintance and 24% is stranger. It was noted that when non-family does it, the perpetrator tends to live fairly close to the victims. This supports my idea that the children may have thought they knew The Man and that is how they were willing to let him into their circle so easily.

Hart had a home in Adelaide as I understand it but I am confused on address, if it was Prospect Avenue/Street or if Prospect was a town up north near Yatina, where he was subsequently "assisted" [sic] to move. It might be interesting to work out his Adelaide home or work sites with routes to school, etc. He--like Brown--had worked as a butcher. Could the children have "known" him from seeing him in a store? Had Jane ever been sent to the store to pick up meat for dinner? Had he waited on her or winked at her from the back of the shop? Just a thought.

If anyone figured out where Hart lived in Adelaide, if he offered to walk home with the children, would his place have been on the way? I am thinking again of the severe heat and whether or not a car trip was feasible in the heat.

As I understand it both properties available to Hart had underground air raid shelters and similar things. Whether of not Gerard Croiset knew anything I still think his suggestion of a "cave" with a "dirt floor" has validity. As an impression, IMO it could mean a number of things ranging from identifying something about the perpetrator to the actual place where the children were taken. Croiset was obviously wrong a number of times but the "cave" impression makes sense to me. Then we find that Hart had access to various "caves".

I think Derek Percy did the Wanda beach murders. He was the right age for the description of a young man near that beach and he had a certain signature in his known crimes.

[Anna Morris]

There is a VERY interesting Facebook page with a very long loink I would probably get wrong. Its title is 'Exposing Australian Rock Spiders', rock spiders being slang for pedophiles. I don't know if https://www.facebook.com/exposingaustralianrockspiders/ would get anyone there. That figures...that "link" doesn't work but I think the page would be easy to google.

There is a large posting on both the Beaumont children and the Aldelaide Oval abduction. Going a little below this long post there is a layout of photos of convicted pedophiles and murderers who, the post claims, were at Glenelg Beach the day the Beaumont children disappeared. (It does seem like there were a lot of creeps in the area around that time.)

[Adam Went]

Hi all,

Tania & Stan:

From what little I know of the case, it sounds as if maybe it could have been a jilted older lover type situation? Granted, Shirley was only 14, but it sounds as though she looked and acted much older than her years. The fact that she was beaten so brutally might suggest an attack based on rage - especially since she had been seen with a man several times leading up to her death.

Anna:

There may have been a clock near the beach - maybe on a tower or something in the reserve? I'm not sure, but surely you would think so?

As for Nancy, yes you're right, she was so distraught that she had to be sedated - she even said herself in later interviews that she wasn't thinking straight for some time after the children disappeared due to the medication she was put on.

Regarding the buses, it seems just from reading between the lines that there wasn't a 1:00 pm bus that day. Nancy said that once the 12:00 pm bus passed, there wasn't going to be another one until 2:00 pm, and then another at 3:00 pm. Not to Somerton Park, where they lived anyway. Nancy had visitors arrive after noon and only became really concerned when they hadn't appeared on foot and the 2:00 pm bus didn't bring them. So if the children were on the beach and had, by accident or design, missed the 12:00 bus, would this have made Jane panic a bit more knowing that either they would have to walk in the intense heat or wait for the 2:00 pm bus, knowing that her mother would be starting to worry?

The one thorn in the side of all that is the bakery sighting, which apparently happened around 11.30 - 11.45 am. I would assume this time would be accurate as there would have been a clock in the shop. But as you know, i'm reading the book on the case at the moment, and there's something quite interesting come up about that bakery visit. Let me quote the relevant section - this is from Michael Madigan's "The Missing Beaumont Children: 50 Years of Mystery and Misery", loc. 1358 in Kindle edition:

"The Beaumont parents also confirmed that the children regularly bought their lunch at Wenzel's shop.

Blight: "Grant is one of few children who won't eat pasties. Just as the eldest of the three children was to pay for their lunch the youngest, a boy, asked: 'Where is my pie?'"

Det. Blight said the children bought five pasties, one pie, six buns and two large bottles of soft drink at the cost of 11/-."

Now I don't want to jump the gun on this in case it's referred back to later in the book, but there is no mention here of a pie being for The Man. Judging by other interviews with the parents, it's evident that Grant was a very fussy eater, and needed distractions in order to eat. Only one pie was bought, so this makes me wonder whether what was actually said was "a pie for Grant" and over the years this has mistakenly become "a pie for The Man"?

I can just imagine the scenario: the children go into the shop and get their lunch, it's almost noon. Grant needs to be distracted to eat, so Jane takes them back to the reserve area and they play while they eat. Maybe she has some trouble getting him to eat his pie. By the time they finish, they've missed the 12:00 bus and now have to either walk home or wait for the 2:00 bus. Jane becomes concerned, and The Man sees his opportunity. This also ties in with the sighting by the postman, and explains why the children were seen still on their own.

However, there's still a problem with this - they cashed a one pound note, so where did that come from? The idea has been that it came from the adult - The Man - who they were with. I'm wondering if maybe it was a bit more innocent than that - maybe somebody dropped it out of their belongings and the children found it? That wouldn't be as unlikely as it seems on such a crowded beach. Why did they buy so much food - far too much for three small children? Maybe they were taking extra back for some friends they had met on the beach, spending up big since they'd found a one pound note? I guess it's more so the fact that if they didn't refer to The Man in the bakery, it changes the complexion of the scenario entirely. If they were hanging around near the bus stop having missed the bus, and The Man they were playing with had followed them, might he not then have offered them a lift? "My car is just down the road, come on i'll give you a ride"? It just seems a bit odd that if he had given them the money, he would risk sending them in to the bakery and making sure they returned to him. Wouldn't it be more sensible to say "don't worry about lunch, we'll stop at my friends house up the road and get something there. Save your pocket money!"? I'm just guessing here, but from everything i've read, I think that Jane must have been put in a really difficult position in order to send both herself and her siblings with a stranger, or even somebody they may have known. Besides, as you say, why would the man draw attention to himself if he had more sinister intentions? Then again, if the man who was playing with them on the beach was innocent, you have to wonder why he never came forward to clear his name.

Regarding the Adelaide Oval children, it's very similar - crowded place, children of similar ages, a man leading them off. I guess the problem I have with it is, why the 7 year gap - 1966 to 1973? Assuming it was Stanley Hart, he apparently was a regular attendee at football games, and was in amongst such big crowds regularly. So why the long wait? I know, I know, it can happen. Still just seems a bit odd though, especially if he had been buoyed by the unsuccessful investigation into the Beaumont children. Or was there more incidents that haven't necessarily been linked? No doubting there was a lot of predators and the like lurking around that time. Still, I have to say that at the moment, Anthony Munro is probably my preferred suspect, or at least involved somehow. Though maybe that's just me hoping that it's someone who is still alive and can be held accountable in public for what they've done.

I do hope you can get that book, Anna. It devotes a whole chapter to Croiset and the other psychics / mystics who tried to crack the case, I think you'd enjoy it. Reading between the lines, the Beaumont's weren't fans of them or their methods - they were hounded at home by whackjobs a number of times. However, they were still appreciative that they were trying to help.

Meanwhile, the case was back in the papers again yesterday. Here's the article which you might be interested in - it seems that Harry Phipps candidacy as a suspect is fading by the day:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5404519/Adelaide-man-Harry-Phipps-innocent-says-son.html

Cheers,
Adam.

[Adam Went]

Sorry, I missed your most recent post! Yes, I've seen that Facebook page and some of the posters on there have some really good information. I trust you've read about Stansbury on there? That sounds like it could be the next probable dig site. IIRC there's also some information on there about Yatina which was mentioned before.

One more thing: the children had bikes which they had wanted to take to the beach, but their mother was concerned about them riding in the heat, so the bikes stayed at home and they caught the bus. It would have been interesting if they had taken their bikes - if they were abducted from the beach, taking all of their clothes, towels, etc is one thing. Taking three bikes is another, it might have offered a better clue. If only!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Anna Morris]

Hi Adam,

I checked out the book. Looks like it is by Kindle or Nook only and I don't buy online. I did get enough of a preview to pick up a few more things.

In this case, as with any big case, if you read enough, you can achieve a great deal of confusion. It almost sounds like there were two groups of children at the beach and one was with a man, perhaps a younger man.

What about the Viet Nam veteran who claimed he sat by the children waiting on the bench? He said he saw the children come from the beach or out of the water and sit on the bench. The oldest girl was quite chatty. That doesn't sound like Jane. She said a man had bought lunch for them. THEN the man came out of the changing room and the young man thought he was a "lad" and asked if he had been drafted for the war yet. (We call it the draft here.) A lad is hardly likely to mistake an older man for another lad. Is there any truth to this story? One problem I have here is this man claims the girl said a man had given them a one pound note to get lunch. It is unlikely a child would mention the amount of money, I think. Maybe it would come up in slang terms but it just seems odd. In Americanese of the time: The guy gave us a buck and we got lunch.

A younger man could have had three children with him, maybe even a blended group as was Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirsti Gordon.

There was the woman who said she watched the children playing and the older girl said to her, "are you trying to con my little brother," or take him? That doesn't sound like Jane. If it was Jane and this really happened, then she must have been aware of strangers and the dangers and to have seen threat in people who sit and watch.

The descriptions by the elderly people who could identify clothing, etc. is the best information. (Elderly woman then elderly couple.)

I would think the amount of food purchased would have equaled leftovers. In the currency of the time, 11/- would be about half a pound or a half crown, right? There would have been change? It bothers me that no one saw the kids eat and that is a lot of food and drink. It is a lot of heavy food to eat on a very hot day. It would make more sense if the lids had gotten cool treats like ice cream and drinks and then planned to go home for lunch. That was a huge meal. I assume they would have packed off all that food in bags or something. There is no report of the children carrying or eating that food, so what the heck on that?

The name Grant could sound like The Man. Little brothers might also be called Little Man, etc. How crowded was the bakeshop? Most people tend to have poor listening skills. In a crowded situation they are likely to do worse.

Some reports made it sound like the bus ran every hour but most information does indicate a two hour interval. Nancy was not overly worried until the 2:00 bus passed. Jane was so mature I have an idea she knew the parameters of missing a bus, that her mother might not worry too much until 2:00. So I don't necessarily think Jane would have been overly upset by missing the 12:00 bus.

If it was Jane who snapped at the woman about conning or taking the brother, had someone done something earlier that put Jane on the alert?

At best it looks like three children dressed like the Beaumont kids, with an airline bag, were friendly with a man who was lying in the grass at the reserve by the sprinklers. This man asked several people if they had seen anyone messing with their stuff and maybe indicated some money was missing.

If those kids were the Beaumonts then they must have known the man previously. The elderly woman said the kids were playing in the sprinkler and the man was watching. The younger children began playing with him and the older girl eventually started snapping her towel at him. She claims the man was ten feet from her on the grass. The children did not greet him when they came up and there is no report of him speaking to them or getting their attention. It sounds like the whole group was together. Other than clothing description and number of kids, how sure can we be that these were the Beaumont children?

We could make a case for another set of three children, two girls, one small boy, with a relative or friend, at the beach. The oldest girl in this group is tough and outgoing. She confronts a woman on a bench, demanding to know if the woman wants to con or take the little brother. This girl sits on a bench next to a young soldier and has no trouble talking to him. This girl, on the bench, seemed to be staring at the young man's lunch because he asked if she was hungry and she said the other man had given them money and they had had lunch. (Timing on this is problematic, IMO. It would have taken a long time for the kids to eat as much food as was purchased and other sightings of the kids on the bench put it close to the time the food was purchased, etc.) These are the children who start playing with the man lying on the grass, apparently without introduction or words exchanged. The man helps these children dress and they wait for him outside a changing room. (Clothing and accessories were more standardized then and I think two sets of three children could have been dressed more or less alike.)

What might be the only correct sightings of the Beaumont children? The bus driver let them off in the morning and the postman saw them sometime around or after noon. Apparently the police were discouraged with the confusing information at the time. Perhaps we stretch things too hard in trying to fit it all together as much of it does not fit easily.

Stanley Hart was a "recidivist paedophile" which is why he was "assisted" [sic] to move to Yatina. I take that to mean he was supposed to straighten up or leave town. Maybe he was trying to be better. If he took the children and he was on probation it could tell us a lot about why they were never seen again. If he got the Beaumont children maybe he waited a long time before he tried such a thing again. (I found a newspaper clip on Stanley Arthur Hart from 1938 where he was arrested for stealing "11 ctw potatoes" from a line shack. Interesting. I am not sure what "ctw" means, if that is a lot of potatoes or not.)

Stanley Hart also would have been about 49 in 1966.

Considering clairvoyance, it is accepted that mothers have premonitions that save their children. One of my in-laws had a premonition a car was going to crash through the house so she removed her baby from his crib. Shortly thereafter a car crashed through the house and the front grille ended up against the baby's crib. If we strip religion out of faith, what do we have left? What were the earliest humans created to know? We know enough to eat, drink and find shelter. If religion is necessary for life, what is genetically programmed from earliest times before there was Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc.?

Earliest people seemed to believe in and communicate with the Other Side. Ancestor worship is very old. I think modern life creates interference in feeling that other reality but at times I think many people do have contact with the another dimension.

I was kind of a fan of Sylvia Browne. She was another who I believe got caught up in trying too hard because she made more and more mistakes. Maybe she saw more clearly than many but a lot of what she claimed to see was bits and pieces open to interpretation. For the most part I think that is what can be seen, with occasional dramatic visions occurring.

I actually did "see" a couple things when I first looked at this case, before I had read much. One is a red triangle over the beach area with the long side along the beach. This appeared when I wondered if the kids had wandered away up or down the beach. It is accepted that they did not which was also my immediate answer. The point of the triangle ends about where the bakeshop was. The other thing I "see" is a faint black line going north up the coast. Not north to Yatina. I actually did not know where Yatina was until yesterday but anyway, my line does not go there.

(I have never been able to "see" anything concerning JtR.)

[Anna Morris]

I too had considered the kids finding the pound note. The trip to the bakeshop happened close to bus time. Maybe dear, thoughtful Jane used a fortuitous find of money to buy lunch for the family with intent of taking it all home on the bus and sharing with mum? Even if the pasties were the size of pirogies, that is a lot of food for three little kids. And nobody saw them eat it or clean up afterward. Surely little Grant would need a bit of cleaning up after a meat pie?

I doubt Munro would have gone from molesting young boys to killing and kidnapping two girls and a boy. His MO seemed to be to befriend and gain confidence from boys. Plus he came back to Australia when I assume he could have fought extradition from Asia.

I am shocked at the number of stories claiming bodies in the trunk/boot of a car. Hart's grandson, Phipps' son and now another. Just goes to show, lots of information has to be false, misunderstood or poorly remembered.

For me the story of Munro's involvement falls apart at so many levels. I think it is somewhere here that I have described what constitutes proof in the fine art world and I think that is a good measure for other areas of life. If a certain percentage of a story is wrong then probably the rest of it is inaccurate. The idea of bodies in the boot PLUS sisters being called to look...and what is that about brushing sand and blood out of "their hair"? I could speculate but I try not to write things online that would be hurtful to people in real life. Anyway, that basic story is over the top. If there was homicide, it is unbelievable that children were invited to see the evidence. There is no guarantee children/young people could keep quiet after seeing horror.

Maybe the disappearance story is extremely simple. Kids played at beach. Got lunch. Figured they had just missed the bus. Decided to walk home. Were invited into a home or offered a ride on the way home?

A POSSIBLE tie-in for Munro would be scouting. Jane was a member of a Brownie troop. Part of my fascination with the case I suppose is that Jane was just about my age. (I look younger than I am and lie about my age but...) I am the product of small towns so what I remember may not apply. Anyway, scouting was kind of an elite thing headed by parents from families very active in the community. These parents liked to dress up in their uniforms and attend meetings and assemblies, etc. I don't remember or know if cub/boy scouts and Brownie/girl scouts ever attended the same events. Family could not identify anyone in their circle who might have been involved in the crime. Did the parents know everyone involved in scouting? Plus, scouts were a little like church back then, above suspicion. Now we know creeps like Munro were well infiltrated and nothing is ultimately sacred, not even church.

One article I read yesterday had a side story dated yesterday that there is an influx of blue ringed octopi at Glenelg right now. Nasty little characters. Cute but nasty.