Unsolved Girls that went missing from Adelaide Oval 1973

[Kurve]

Of interest.
- Arthur Brown - The Beaumont Children

 

[johnymac1]

Throughout social media there are always persons claiming they were at the oval on the day.
One lady states she was in the Toilet area during the abduction. Asking simple questions like, what direction did they turn when leaving the oval? they normally are unable to answer. frustrates matters when people are trying to insert themselves into the narrative.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

BL Has done some recent work on the Hart line of enquiry.
By taking the barrel samples found at the Pekin dam to Melbourne for forensic testing.
Everything they collected was tested before by local authorities. Then returned to researchers.
Interestingly, He as a hat he thinks was owned by Hart. Shouldn't it be DNA tested to establish if it was indeed owned by Hart ?

All his research is documented on His FB page

Too many associate connections around Hart for him not to be involved. I don't think he was the abductor though..I think that person was Brown. That of course means the there was a pedophile gang involved.. I'll try and have a look at website.

It always intrigued me that initially it was said there was a weak trace of blood in those barrels but then later the police said there was nothing. Huh?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

This is the under investigation episode about this case. Of particular interest to me is the known fact that the person who was abductor was identified as having a stoop by eye witness accounts. I would like opinion from posters about Brown. From 29' 23" to approx 29' 51" there is video of Brown relating to the later Mackay sisters murders .I'm unsure whether his walk constitutes a stoop. It certainly is irregular in nature perhaps even a "crazy walk" as was the description given by Detective Ray Gunner Kelly relating to the Beaumont case and eye witness testimony of a man seen late in the day circa 3 pm with the children. The cases have always been linked by police. It has always been said because of the similarity of identakit images. I also suspect that the link though not stated by police was likely this stoop or 'crazy walk' common to both.

My opinion is that Brown's nature of walk is very similar to the description given by Ray Kelly.....walking like an ape. Ie to me he swings his long arms forward like an ape.....his hips seem to be also forward of his remaining body position. these characteristics are common to a stoop too though there is no hunch of the back. Together with the image match using identification software this is VERY incriminating for Brown. Thoughts?

 

[Kit]

Puts my POI. right in that age group

SAPOL will not dig there because they were not buried there. They have already been found. BARELLS- YATINA. And the horrendous clowns that took the lives of these beautiful children were protected by those that also played a part in this nightmare. All old now and most likely dead. Hopefully the afterlife pays back what they deserve.

 

[Macca180]

SAPOL will not dig there because they were not buried there. They have already been found. BARELLS- YATINA. And the horrendous clowns that took the lives of these beautiful children were protected by those that also played a part in this nightmare. All old now and most likely dead. Hopefully the afterlife pays back what they deserve.

so whatever was in the barrels destroyed the bodies so much there was nothing at all left?

agree, its so flipping sad.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

I'll be staying in Central Adelaide over the next few days and l'm planning some serious sleuthing on this case while l'm there. I'm up for tackling some good walks, being particularly interested in the description, demographics and feasibility of Ms. Lawrie's alleged sighting of a suspect on the other side of the river. I'll be taking some pics of the said area at the narrowest/widest part of the river. I'll walk by road and by river bank to check the distance and feasibility of carrying struggling children. As an Adelaidean, hardly anything there has changed at all demographically after 50 years.

I plan to do the walks Sunday as there's footy at Adelaide Oval. At 4.15pm there will be an AFL game in progress, as was the SANFL game when the children disappeared in 1973.

I'm hoping someone might be able to enlighten me on the following:-

• What were the weather conditions that day?
• What time was sunset?
• What was the attendance figure at the footy
  that day and how does it compare with the
  predicted attendance of the AFL this Sunday?
  ( I'm specifically looking at the horrendous
  traffic and parking conditions in 1973 v the
  semi-organised aspect today).
  * ls crowd noise outside the oval louder or
  softer now than it was then, given the new
  grandstands etc.
  * Did the Popeye and/or Paddle Boats run in
  winter?
  
  Is there anything else I should look at?

Did you get around to walking along the Torrens in the area that the sighting took place?

 

[DropBearess]

Did you get around to walking along the Torrens in the area that the sighting took place?

Yes l did and thanks for reminding me!

It was overcast that day with minimal bursts of sunshine. Light showers happened on and off: enough to get people really wet without a brolley. It was very cold. The crowd at the game (Crows v BB) was around double the number of the crowd (Nor v Nth)on the day.

I walked the riverbank, beginning at Morphett St Bridge heading north, then past Adelaide Oval to the Uni footbridge, then the same return journey (ouch, too old for this caper)! The Popeye was running, allowing passengers a good view of the river banks on both sides. But what struck me most was the isolation in that l passed very few
people, despite a big event nearby. They were
mainly joggers, which we really didn't have in
those days.

Given these circumstances 50 years ago and everyone's limited access to transport, it's very easy to deduce how this happened in broad daylight and why there were so few witnesses.

I took a number of photos at the same time of
day from across the narrowest part of the river; that same place where a prominent witness claims to have recognised the face of a POI. While l believe the offender was/is indeed someone already on the radar, it just isn't possible to define that person's face. I have excellent eyesight but my unretouched pics don't support this eyewitness

 

[DropBearess]

Yes l did and thanks for reminding me!

It was overcast that day with minimal bursts of sunshine. Light showers happened on and off: enough to get people really wet without a brolley. It was very cold. The crowd at the game (Crows v BB) was around double the number of the crowd (Nor v Nth)on the day.

I walked the riverbank, beginning at Morphett St Bridge heading north, then past Adelaide Oval to the Uni footbridge, then the same return journey (ouch, too old for this caper)! The Popeye was running, allowing passengers a good view of the river banks on both sides. But what struck me most was the isolation in that l passed very few
people, despite a big event nearby. They were
mainly joggers, which we really didn't have in
those days.

Given these circumstances 50 years ago and everyone's limited access to transport, it's very easy to deduce how this happened in broad daylight and why there were so few witnesses.

I took a number of photos at the same time of
day from across the narrowest part of the river; that same place where a prominent witness claims to have recognised the face of a POI. While l believe the offender was/is indeed someone already on the radar, it just isn't possible to define that person's face. I have excellent eyesight but my unretouched pics don't support this eyewitness

Yes l did and thanks for reminding me!

It was overcast that day with minimal bursts of sunshine. Light showers happened on and off: enough to get people really wet without a brolley. It was very cold. The crowd at the game (Crows v BB) was around double the number of the crowd (Nor v Nth)on the day.

I walked the riverbank, beginning at Morphett St Bridge heading north, then past Adelaide Oval to the Uni footbridge, then the same return journey (ouch, too old for this caper)! The Popeye was running, allowing passengers a good view of the river banks on both sides. But what struck me most was the isolation in that l passed very few
people, despite a big event nearby. They were
mainly joggers, which we really didn't have in
those days.

Given these circumstances 50 years ago and everyone's limited access to transport, it's very easy to deduce how this happened in broad daylight and why there were so few witnesses.

I took a number of photos at the same time of
day from across the narrowest part of the river; that same place where a prominent witness claims to have recognised the face of a POI. While l believe the offender was/is indeed someone already on the radar, it just isn't possible to define that person's face. I have excellent eyesight but my unretouched pics don't support this eyewitness

A couple more pics.

Here is a question for hard-core SANFL tragics.
Suzie Ratcliffe's very authentic and respected recent online info says the Ratcliffe and Gordon families "always sat together for games and
knew each other well". What were the membership protocols then? Does this mean both families had tickets for every single Norwood or North home and away games and how did this work? Where does Frank Bone fit into all this?

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Yes l did and thanks for reminding me!

It was overcast that day with minimal bursts of sunshine. Light showers happened on and off: enough to get people really wet without a brolley. It was very cold. The crowd at the game (Crows v BB) was around double the number of the crowd (Nor v Nth)on the day.

I walked the riverbank, beginning at Morphett St Bridge heading north, then past Adelaide Oval to the Uni footbridge, then the same return journey (ouch, too old for this caper)! The Popeye was running, allowing passengers a good view of the river banks on both sides. But what struck me most was the isolation in that l passed very few
people, despite a big event nearby. They were
mainly joggers, which we really didn't have in
those days.

Given these circumstances 50 years ago and everyone's limited access to transport, it's very easy to deduce how this happened in broad daylight and why there were so few witnesses.

I took a number of photos at the same time of
day from across the narrowest part of the river; that same place where a prominent witness claims to have recognised the face of a POI. While l believe the offender was/is indeed someone already on the radar, it just isn't possible to define that person's face. I have excellent eyesight but my unretouched pics don't support this eyewitness

If you only went to the footbridge then you stopped short of the narrower part further around near where the Popeye stops which is where I believe the witness claims she saw them.

 

[DropBearess]

If you only went to the footbridge then you stopped short of the narrower part further around near where the Popeye stops which is where I believe the witness claims she saw them.

I did go a bit further than under the foot bridge but there were so many reeds that l didn't think it was a valid replication of the circumstances. Only a metre or two difference at best though. The witness would have had to have balanced right on the rivers edge, nearly in it, to get a view better than mine. Don't forget there were (and still are) paths well above the river edge on both sides. Most people follow the paths unless they're just ambling along to explore the river or looking for a picnic spot in August? The witness was apparently returning from a day at the Zoo with her family. I can't imagine why she would have wanted to venture below the path so as to clearly recognise people on the other side. It was very cold that day.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I did go a bit further than under the foot bridge but there were so many reeds that l didn't think it was a valid replication of the circumstances. Only a metre or two difference at best though. The witness would have had to have balanced right on the rivers edge, nearly in it, to get a view better than mine. Don't forget there were (and still are) paths well above the river edge on both sides. Most people follow the paths unless they're just ambling along to explore the river or looking for a picnic spot in August? The witness was apparently returning from a day at the Zoo with her family. I can't imagine why she would have wanted to venture below the path so as to clearly recognise people on the other side. It was very cold that day.

Thank you so much for doing that. Pictures don't appear very clear focus so perhaps not a great gauge but what's important is what you SAW with your eyes. If you say that you can't see facial characteristics and your eyesight is unimpaired then her testimony at the time is flawed or questionable. That is the suspicion many already had absent your test.

I do vaguely recall also that she did refer to using the path. Unlikely they wouldn't I feel. So distance and sighting even more difficult. She said she was certain and can't possibly have been in my opinion.

Importantly she came forward a considerable time AFTER the abductions so the identakit pictures which were a match to Brown via facial recognition software were instead done by the witnesses at the ground. The teenage boy in particular was a keen witness because he was attracted to Joanne. So whilst Sue Lawrie's opinion must lack some credibility, the veracity of the identakit itself probably doesn't because ultimately it created a match in reverse.

What this tells us is that Sue Lawrie's testimony may have a question mark and the witness accounts of them going the opposite direction increase in likelihood. I suspect the perp parked his car far enough away that it took the long walk/ dragging the girls to get there in order to hide identification of his car as relating to the perp.....side Street perhaps. I think it unlikely he used public transport.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

I did go a bit further than under the foot bridge but there were so many reeds that l didn't think it was a valid replication of the circumstances. Only a metre or two difference at best though. The witness would have had to have balanced right on the rivers edge, nearly in it, to get a view better than mine. Don't forget there were (and still are) paths well above the river edge on both sides. Most people follow the paths unless they're just ambling along to explore the river or looking for a picnic spot in August? The witness was apparently returning from a day at the Zoo with her family. I can't imagine why she would have wanted to venture below the path so as to clearly recognise people on the other side. It was very cold that day.

The original entrance/exit of the Adelaide zoo is next to the Frome rd bridge, the only path that runs along the Torrens on that side starts directly across the road from the zoo exit and immediately leads down to and along the river, so if she said she viewed them from across the river it would make sense for her to be on that path.
From Adelaide Oval there is a path that leads under the King William st bridge on the northern side and continues along the Torrens to the Frome rd bridge, directly across from the path mentioned above and both at river level.
It makes sense for an abductor to use that path as it provides cover from street level and eliminates crossing King William rd, it would make little to no sense to then return back to the roadside path for 2 reasons, firstly you wouldnt need to as they both lead to the same place and secondly he's an older man carrying 1 child and dragging another, much easier to avoid an unnecessary climb on steep terrain.

You only have to look at Google maps/earth to see the river is much narrower at the Frome rd bridge than the University footbridge, its not even close.

 

[johnymac1]

A story on Chanel 9 Adelaide tonight, After 50 yrs the lolly seller will be telling his side of the story.

I understand its the Hart Theory being discussed. He's going to indicate it was Hart that he saw at the Oval.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

A story on Chanel 9 Adelaide tonight, After 50 yrs the lolly seller will be telling his side of the story.

I understand its the Hart Theory being discussed. He's going to indicate it was Hart that he saw at the Oval.

That's a MAJOR revelation.

I've always wondered what he thought. That under investigation doco by liz Hayes identified Brown. The identakit image matched Brown using software facial recognition. The identakit was I imagine mostly his input to sketch. So I'm a little bemused that it's now reversing to Hart.


A huge amount of evidence has always linked Hart. Multiple of his associates were there. There is the whole barrel evidence too. The confession letter

Well that blows the Sue Lawrie account out of the water.

I really hope they have a video of Hart to confirm the stoop walk

 

[Macka_321]

 

[Macka_321]

 

[metic]

Adelaide Oval abduction witness recounts chilling details for first time

www.9news.com.au

"In his first-ever interview, Tony Kilmartin says he was selling lollies and ice cream with his brother at an Australian rules game, when he saw victims Joanne Ratcliffe, 11, and Kirste Gordon, 4, being taken in 1973.

Kilmartin, who was only 13 years old at the time, had previously served the girls and recognised them when the commotion began under a grandstand at the end of the final quarter."

 

[metic]

"That day, Kilmartin has been shown photos of a multitude of suspects and he says the deceased Stanley Hart most resembles the man he saw.
Hart was a known paedophile and a devoted supporter of the North Adelaide Football Club, which was one of the two teams that played at Adelaide Oval on the day of the abduction."

Adelaide Oval abduction witness recounts chilling details for first time

www.9news.com.au

 

[PenfoldsFan]

That's a MAJOR revelation.

I've always wondered what he thought. That under investigation doco by liz Hayes identified Brown. The identakit image matched Brown using software facial recognition. The identakit was I imagine mostly his input to sketch. So I'm a little bemused that it's now reversing to Hart.


A huge amount of evidence has always linked Hart. Multiple of his associates were there. There is the whole barrel evidence too. The confession letter

Well that blows the Sue Lawrie account out of the water.

I really hope they have a video of Hart to confirm the stoop walk

I dont know that it does blow Sue Lawrie's account out of the water, if anything it supports it in that the offender turned left which is the direction he'd need to travel from the gate to where she says saw him, Kilmartin says it most closely resembles Hart which although not Brown, are very similar in shape.
I believe she saw the man and girls that day, only it was Hart and not Brown. As I said earlier in the thread, it would be quite easy to make out shape from the distances suggested but detail not so much and so that finer detail between the two may have been lacking to be specific and she chose wrong in a 50/50.

Unfortunately, too much time has passed to say 100% that Hart did it, but we now know that someone resembling Hart took the girls as had been described from day one, he turned and headed in the direction of where Sue Lawrie said she seen them. This is also the direction Hart could take under the cover of the Torrens depression to get back to the East parklands where he could head North to Prospect or South to Parkside.
It was a brazen crime, we know that people associated with Hart had taken action to remove him to Yatina which you could assume was because his activities we're becoming more erratic, or brazen and drawing attention to others perhaps.
It would be harder to rule him out than in.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The links with Hart & Yatina have been known for years. It's inconceivable that SAPOL haven't grabbed this and solved it. Search the bunker in prospect. Search ALL the wells at Yatina. Give the public the full results of tests on the barrels. Get witness testimony from those that knew him including SAPOL of his stoop..

I get the distinct impression they don't want to solve either AO or BC cases. I suspect that he was protected, probably because he was in the drug trade and gave kickbacks to stay outside investigation.

I smell a rat

 

[latinoheat]

Channel 7 released a name on a suspect who has since passed away . Not a name mentioned before

 

[jason_recliner]

Channel 7 released a name on a suspect who has since passed away . Not a name mentioned before

Who?

 

[Macka_321]

Channel 7 released a name on a suspect who has since passed away . Not a name mentioned before

This is not recent information as been suggested. Guys name is errol george radan was in prison in QLD now dead.

 

[latinoheat]

Who?

Sorry , had to find the story cos I forgot the name




Errol Radan

 

[latinoheat]

This is not recent information as been suggested. Guys name is errol george radan was in prison in QLD

Ok, first time I’ve seen it mentioned