Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Beaumont Children

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hi Anna , Tania and Adam,
    I think that the possibility of the children being drugged is rather unlikely. Had the trio been approached on,or near to a crowded Glenelg beach, unless they were lured into a vehicle it would have been almost impossible to load three drug affected kids into a vehicle, were that to be the case.

    Just to return to soporific ( sleep inducing substances) , Tania , neither valium ( diazepam), nor serepax( oxazepam) are quick acting benzodiazepines). The drug of choice would have been chloral hydrate , which in aqueous solution is colorless and tasteless. But, here exists a problem, inasmuch that CH is most effective when slipped into an alcoholic drink-the original 'Mickey Finn'! I can imagine that the children were likely to have been into alcohol.

    Perhaps the bait that was used, assuming that Phipp was the prime suspect, was the offer of more money?


    Much is the recent evidence that has recently emerged relates to Phipp's son's accusations against his father and the statements of the two( now) men that dug the trench. As Adam rightly says , as the factory site is to be demolished anyway, why not extend the entire excavation?
    Cheer,
    Merv
    Be nice to one another!
    Merv

    Comment


    • #17
      Hi all,

      Tania:

      The special TV investigation I was talking about has just been uploaded to Youtube. I'll post the link below if you or anyone else here is interested in seeing it (hopefully it works overseas) - it's definitely worth a watch, and lays out the case against Harry Phipps as well. Bear in mind though that it was broadcast a couple of days before the dig at Castalloy. Mostyn Matters, the retired detective who features in this documentary, was apparently present at the dig, and was by all accounts very distraught when the search turned up nothing. This case still brings out so many emotions from all involved.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWN3cHKeuCw

      Yes, I have heard about Dr. Bogle & Mrs. Chandler. That is a very bizarre case isn't it? I have read a few stories that they were poisoned and their bodies were dumped by the river, but in any case it's a strange one. I have some vague memory of watching a documentary many years ago where it was suggested that they were killed by some sort of poisonous gas in the area?

      Anna:

      Great points by you and Merv, and I agree that it would have been far too difficult to take three sedated children off a busy beach without causing a scene. I think there can be little doubt that the children were led from the beach willingly, which makes it even more likely that they were with either somebody that they knew or who had gained their trust. A sedative might have been used later on, but even so you would surely have to think that more than one person was involved, wouldn't you?

      If you happen to watch the documentary I linked above, the boys talk about the job of digging that hole. No doubting the man behaved strangely, but as they said as well, 1 pound was good money for a teenager and they weren't about to ask any questions. It mustn't have been long after that when Australia ditched the English currency and introduced our own dollars and cents.

      Interesting that you mention the pattern of 1 pound notes being handed out - yes, it was a pattern. Phipps was known to carry around a wad of 1 pound notes which he would hand out for such things. He was a millionaire, so a couple of pounds here and there wouldn't have bothered him in the least. In the documentary, Hayden Phipps, his son, talks about that in a previous interview (Hayden passed a few years ago, but his former wife is on the documentary). There's no doubt that Phipps is a good suspect, but then if he was involved, where are the children? Are they elsewhere on the Castalloy site or was he just part of a group who took the children out of the area?

      Regarding the food they bought at the bakery, i'm paraphrasing here as I haven't read the interview with the shopkeeper at the bakery, but apparently Jane bought several pasties, buns and bottles of soft drink - along with a "pie for the man". That was the apparent quote, so you're spot on yet again regarding the pie being for somebody else! Still, that's far too much, you would have to think, for three small children. What can we read into that? Perhaps, as you say, that the money and buying the food for somebody else was the lure to bring them back to a certain place / house / car? Bearing in mind that the postman didn't see any adults with them, so whoever it was must have been trying to stay out of obvious sight.

      Unfortunately i'm really not of much help to you when it comes to how common television was in 1966, or whether the Beaumont's had one in their house - surely though there would have been electronics stores in the area where the children could have satisfied their interest in the new technology? There's plenty of stories of people gathering around the windows of such stores in the early days.

      Merv:

      Most of that medical talk goes straight over my head but i'll take your word for it! The other telling fact is that nothing belonging to the children was left on the beach - no clothing, bags, towels, toys - not a thing. So they weren't rushed to leave the beach either, they must have collected up all of their belongings which again points to their voluntarily leaving the beach.

      I do hope that they dig up the remainder of Castalloy in the near future, and if not, they start investigating the properties of other prime suspects. Of course there's never been any proof that they actually died, but is anything else a realistic possibility?

      Cheers,
      Adam.

      Comment


      • #18
        There's also this one, a bit older but also less suspect driven.

        https://youtu.be/rZrfxfo19Cg

        Cheers,
        Adam.

        Comment


        • #19
          Hi all


          Some really interesting responses. I am certainly not wed to the idea that all 3 of the children, if any, were drugged. If drugs were used you would only have to sedate one of the kids and have the excuse of the sleepy child. Perpetrator could have said to the other two that he would take them home but we need to stop somewhere on the way. Just putting it out there. I love the conversation/ideas/opinions that it stimulates. I think the children did trust the person and that they left the beach voluntarily. Any sort of carry on or tantrum would have attracted attention. Drugs could possibly have been used once that were lured away to keep them quiet or at least controllable. I think the children were killed not long after they disappeared.


          Bogle/Chandler - there was a program/documentary about 10 years ago that put forward the idea that the couple died as a result of noxious gases emitted from sort of explosion in the area. The couple were partially clothed but had been covered over with items of clothing and cardboard when they were found. It was thought that this may have been done by a passer by.


          Anna - someone after my own heart. I loved food related books and films. I am currently reading a non fiction book entitled "Charlemagne's Tablecloth". It's about the history of feasts and banquets. Really interesting. Have you heard of it? BTW Australians love meat pies. Even the crap quality ones are still usually devoured. Sausage rolls are also a favourite.


          The handing around of 1 pound notes is an interesting point. If this was the case with the Beaumont children how may times did it happen? Wouldn't the parents become a little suspicious if when they came home from their outings that they may have been full, didn't want to eat all their dinner? Or that they had extra money. Not necessarily that they would fess up about it but kids do tend to talk or just spill the beans unintentionally.


          Adam - thanks for the links. I will definitely watch these docos.


          t

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Stan Reid View Post
            It is an interesting case. I have it at #47 on my Top 1000+ Classic Unsolved Murder Case List between Hinter-Kiafeck (1922) at #46 and the Lake Bodom Murders (1960) at #48.
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              Hi Tania,

              I definitely agree with you that some sort of sedative might have been an option once the children were out of public sight. You mention your belief they died soon after - I wonder if the intention from the outset was to kill them, or whether something went wrong? If the Munro story is to be believed - and that of course is a massive IF - then it does seem as if the plan failed somewhere. It's quite a jump to go from being a sexual predator on a beach to murdering three small children.

              Yes, that must have been the theory I heard about Bogle / Chandler. Some pretty bizarre cases in 1960's Australia.

              If you've had the chance to watch those documentaries yet, I hope you found them of interest!

              Hi Stan,

              Tamam Shud. Yeah now that's a weird case and a half isn't it? I'm not sure what to make of that one, although I do think it's not such a remarkable case outside of the book scrap and apparently encryption. Glenelg beach strikes again!

              Incidentally, do you have the aforementioned Dr. Bogle & Mrs. Chandler in your list?

              Cheers,
              Adam.

              Comment


              • #22
                Hi Adam




                The intention may not have been to kill them. Then again why take all three of them and then let them go later? One of them would have said something surely.


                I am starting to think that perhaps only one of the children may have been of particular interest but the person had to take all three of them. Could the other two have been drugged and may be one or both overdosed? Could one of them have died accidentally somehow? If something fatal occurred with one of the kids surely this would lead to a WTF am I/we going to do now moment? So many possibilities!


                t

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Adam Went View Post
                  Hi Stan,

                  Tamam Shud. Yeah now that's a weird case and a half isn't it? I'm not sure what to make of that one, although I do think it's not such a remarkable case outside of the book scrap and apparently encryption. Glenelg beach strikes again!

                  Incidentally, do you have the aforementioned Dr. Bogle & Mrs. Chandler in your list?

                  Cheers,
                  Adam.
                  Hi Adam:

                  I only had 11 on my Australia List but Bogle/Chandler might be #12. It's very interesting and the only reason I wouldn't list it higher is, to me, it's close to a toss-up as to whether it is actually a murder case. Taman Shud and the Beaumont Children aren't definately murders either but I tend to think they most likely are.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I watched the first video Adam posted. The second is shut down due to copyright issues. Guess that means we can't see it in the U.S. I watched other videos and news clips and listened to a really good podcast at youtube. I would post the podcast but it would probably be another of my links that don't work.

                    I tend to reject the idea that the factory owner was the man on the beach. I also have misgivings about his involvement but his son's interview needs to be considered. Some of that was hard to hear but I think he said he saw the children in the backyard of his father's house.

                    I doubt this man would have risked identification by playing with the children on the beach, possibly on two different days. Surely he was known since he was wealthy, must have employed a number of people and lived nearby. Jane commented that the meat pie was for "the man" and surely she would be delivering the pie to the man. If there was an address for the delivery she could have slipped and said, "the man who lives yonder," or something even more descriptive. The factory owner does not seem like the sort who would actually play with children even if he had nefarious plans for the future.

                    I am a little unclear if there were two different incidents of the children playing on the beach with a man. Was there an incident ON the beach from the day before and a different incident with the man at some sprinklers flipping towels with the kids on the day of the disappearance?

                    I was SO impressed with the letter Jane wrote to her parents, telling how she had bedded down her siblings, etc. I was not half the person she was at that age! She was VERY mature and very much in charge. If faced with an obstacle she was unlikely to have been reduced to tears and confusion. She knew her parents loved and trusted her, unlike the poor girl who alleged rape by the factory man but feared her father more.

                    A possible scenario I see is The Man began to take control of the children by taking their money, either Jane's purse with coins or just the coins. When Jane knew the coins were missing I think she would have asked people close to where their things were, if they had seen anything. I am sure The Man would have been close. Jane's thoughts would be how to manage the situation and care for her brother and sister. They could easily skip lunch and walk home if necessary.

                    Maybe Jane did not miss the money until it was about time to buy lunch. Maybe that time was close to the time to take the 12:00 bus. The Man could have sympathized, adult to young adult. "It's a shame there are thieves in the world. Here, do me a favour, go to the bakeshop....get something for yourselves." Minds turn to faceless thieves and a sorry experience is eased.

                    Like I said I don't think the destination for the meat pie was a nearby house. Too much risk in that. Too many eyes on the street to see where the children went. The children were seen at the bakeshop about 15 minutes before they needed to catch the 12:00 bus. Did The Man manage the time so it would be likely the kids would miss that bus? Did Jane realise this too late when she delivered the meat pie?

                    It looks like her mother would have been OK with the children taking a later bus or walking home but I would think Jane was a very punctual girl.

                    I have an idea the meat pie was delivered to an automobile parked somewhere close. Maybe when the delivery was made Jane knew they had missed their bus and The Man said, "Hop in, I'll take you home." What if his car had air conditioning, a possibility in 1966?

                    The kids had cakes and soda to take their attention for awhile, maybe until they realised they were not heading home. All that could explain why no remains were ever found. Perhaps they left the area altogether long before they were missed.

                    The factory owner was a successful man who must have known a great deal about the world. He is accused of being predatory, see it, take it. Wear a satin gown and go berzerk. The girl who said he raped her said his talk quickly became obscene. IMO this is not the sort of fellow who plays with children on the beach, maybe two days in a row. He had to be smart enough to know if he snatched those kids, something would hit the fan as we say and no amount of political connexions would have protected him.

                    Were they in his backyard as the son alleged? Could The Man have been an associate or acquaintance of the factory man? Maybe. Creeps of a feather sometimes flock together. Maybe The Man stopped there on the way taking the kids home. Maybe they were told to go in the backyard where it was cool while The Man finished some business that would only take a minute.

                    There was a pattern at that time of children disappearing in Australia more than one at a time. I would be interested in seeing statistics on how often that happens. WHY would a predator want more than one child? Why not grab one and run? Was that a power thing to be able to get away with more than one child at a time? To me that narrows the field to a predator with that pattern. I cannot think of other cases like this of apparent stranger abduction taking multiple children. Is this unusual or have I missed something?

                    It is said modern predators seek lonely, unhappy, poorly kept children. The Australian children who were abducted seemed to all come from good families and to be well cared for and loved. Surely there were other children available who fit the lonely/unwanted category? What was the thrill in choosing those that were chosen?

                    The Man must not have used a name, even a made up name. Did he use a nickname and make up nicknames for the children? Jane commented the meat pie was for The Man. She didn't slip and use a name or title like Mr. ____. Did he give Jane a complimentary nickname like Little Mother or something and avoid naming himself? If there was any level of felt friendship it seems likely Jane would have said the pie was for Robby or Jimmy or Chip or Mr. ____. At the point she bought the pie I think she wouldn't have known what to call him if asked. "What man?" "Oh, The Man."

                    Concerning the boys digging the hole, if the purpose of the hole was depth and width, why did the sides have to be so perfect? It sounds like the hole was dug to accommodate a box or something of specific shape. (If the children were seen in the backyard by the son, might the hole have been for the son? Just idle thoughts.)
                    The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      If I apply the basic knowledge of this case to being about Jane's age in 1966 America, I keep thinking of The Man as a college student. A university student on holiday. We were taught to have a positive attitude toward college students. They were what we should some day be.

                      IF The Man played with the children on two days he could have created the transient friendship around, "are you kids on school holiday? So am I." Whether he was age 21 or 31, I think this could have worked. The relationship then is not child and adult but students with some equality who can play together. IF there was a previous day of play, what would Jane's parents have thought if she said they had met a university student at the beach? Might the parents think, lonely lad about 18 years old?

                      Plus, Jane had a book. That could have been a point of contact, a comment on the book.

                      A university student might miss young brothers and sisters at home, or say he does. That could explain the playing and towel snapping, etc. For some reason in those days, at least here, the word "nice" frequently went with "college student." Nice college student.

                      Is there a leap from nice college kid to The Man? Maybe. Boy would probably have been a more likely appellation. The Man implies a more distant relationship of dominant adult to child IMO.
                      The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        If we look at the Beaumont children together with the abduction of two girls from the Adelaide Oval, there is the possibility someone came from out of town to abduct children? On both occasions there were large crowds present, the holiday in 1996 and the football game in 1973. The children disappeared basically without a trace. In the second case the children MAY have been seen at a train station with a man. Leaving the area?

                        An advantage to being from out of the area and in a crowd is that any description after the fact would likely be just what we see, "The Man."

                        How about the risks of abducting children in crowds? If someone caught on to what was happening it could be very nasty for the abductor.

                        Another observation is there seemed to be several very bad child predators active in those years and beyond. Connections have not been made with them so far as I know but it seems they might have known each other? It seems very odd that extremely unusual abduction cases happened in the same general area, within a decade or a couple decades if more cases are considered?

                        (Personally I like Arthur Hart as a suspect.) Interestingly the clairvoyant mentioned a cave and remains would be found under the floor of the cave. Apparently Hart had some old air raid shelters on his property.

                        I know the clairvoyant ended up being a disaster but I have a personal opinion about clairvoyance. I believe there is a talent to sometimes see in another dimension but I do not believe this can be controlled. When clairvoyants become professional there is so much pressure to "perform" that they start producing inaccurate revelations. I believe the clairvoyant from Holland wanted to help very much but he was under too much pressure. The cave revelation seemed to come early in his thoughts and may be more accurate. If the children were taken away and no known "caves" were available for search, then this idea must have been disregarded.
                        The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Hi Anna


                          The following link relates to missing person cases in Australian. Most are adults.


                          https://missingpersons.gov.au/

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Tania Edwards View Post
                            Hi Anna


                            The following link relates to missing person cases in Australian. Most are adults.


                            https://missingpersons.gov.au/
                            Thanks, Tania. I found that earlier. Joanne Ratcliffe's sister is very involved with missing children/missing people. Joanne was one of the girls abducted from the Adelaide Oval.
                            The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Hi all,

                              Tania:

                              Well that's true, although I was thinking more that in the documentary I linked, an unidentified woman claims that Harry Phipps raped her in a public area as a teenager, but then she was allowed to go - she didn't tell her parents as she feared the wrath of her father. Still, it makes me question why, if Phipps is the prime suspect, all three children needed to be taken? Different circumstances entirely I know, but I think it all comes back to whether the abduction was pre-planned or opportunistic. I really can't decide on that one, but yes, I do agree that there might well have been a panic moment from the abductor/s.

                              Stan:

                              Fair enough about Bogle / Chandler. I agree that Tamam Shud is most likely a murder, although I think the mystery surrounding it was heightened because of the looming Cold War and the "reds under the bed" paranoia of an unidentified man.

                              Anna:

                              I'm glad you got the chance to watch the documentary. It's been a roller coaster week or so for you hasn't it? You've gone from not knowing the case at all to knowing more about it than most of us! Haha. But i'm pleased that it's been of interest to you.

                              I tend to agree with you re the identification of Harry Phipps as the man on the beach. In the documentary, they gushed over how similar he was to the witness identikit picture. Am I the only one who can't see the resemblance? The identikit man had short blonde hair, looked fairly young and had a thin, narrow face. Phipps had brown, wavy hair, a rounder face and was in his 40's. Of course it's far from being an exact science, and there's a possibility that Phipps was involved in the abduction in some way, but I think you're right in that he wasn't the man on the beach.

                              Regarding the sightings, I think there's some confusion in the documentaries about exactly where they took place. I must check further into that, because in the other documentary which you couldn't watch, the sighting with the man was placed on the reserve area opposite to the beach - not on the beach itself. He then went into the change rooms nearby while the children waited for him to come out. This seems more realistic as in this case, the man was wearing bathers (swimming trunks for our American friends ) - it was a 40+ degree day, and I can't imagine anyone being stood on the beach dressed in a shirt and pants - now that would have been noticed!

                              Would Jane, mature beyond her years, have approached strangers asking about their things? Bear in mind that they lived only two kilometres from the beach. It was a five minute bus ride. In the worst case scenario, they could have easily walked home. Jane may have been more concerned about being late, or being scolded when she got home for 'losing' the money.

                              I also think you're probably right about the automobile being nearby - if The Man had taken them away from the beach area, he could have handed Jane the pound note and said something like "i'll go and wait for you in my car - that's it over there - meet me there". She goes into the bakery with her siblings, gets what she's been told, then goes back to the car and is persuaded to get in perhaps? The fact that only the bakery worker and the postman seem to have seen them in the streets indicates, IMO, that they weren't walking the streets for long.

                              One thing that I wonder about the Castalloy connection is this: if those two boys had dug that massive hole as instructed, when the Castalloy employees came back to work, did nobody ask any questions about why there was suddenly a huge hole in their yard? Even if it had been filled in by then, the area it had been dug would have been noticeable. Did any employees notice anything strange happening around the factory at that time? Surely there must still be some people around who worked at Castalloy in 1966, it could well be worth putting the question to them.

                              Definitely it would be worth further investigating potential connections to other disappearances - there are many rumours of paedophile rings operating in the area during those years. Yatina Hotel is one of the other horror stories linked to that of the Beaumont children.

                              One other thing i've considered: What about the potential involvement of a woman? I know this hasn't really come up before and there's no reason why it should, but it's been done before where a woman works in conjunction with her male counterparts in order to lure children - a woman acts like the kind, motherly figure towards the children, and make them feel more comfortable. We need look no further than the next city across from Adelaide - Perth - a few years later and the case of David & Catherine Birnie to see the impact that the presence of a woman could have (albeit older victims):

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5vrdYo4tc

                              What if The Man had a female partner nearby? Just an idle thought, I don't particularly think it's true, but it's worth thinking about and could be another reason why the children were so willing to go voluntarily.

                              All of those things you mention, Anna, could well be potential points of contact for creating a 'friendship'. But something tells me that the children already knew the man previously.

                              Regarding Gerard Croiset, no doubting it was a great gesture on his part - although his travel was paid for by a local businessman, he apparently carried out his clairvoyant services for free. Unfortunately, he had a long record of having tried and failed in a number of cases, and I think his presence probably did more harm than good overall - it attracted so much public attention and drew the public and investigators alike away from the true facts of the case. In saying that, I do think psychic investigators have a place in some cases.

                              Thanks again for all of your thoughts, i'm enjoying all the bouncing around of ideas very much!

                              Cheers,
                              Adam.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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?
                                The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X