Unsolved The Family Murders

[Kurve]

The Who's Who List

• #2,647

VICTIMS
AB - Alan Barnes 16yo
NM - Neil Muir 25yo
PS - Peter Stogneff 14yo
ML - Mark Langley 18yo
RK- Richard Kelvin 15yo

• DS - Derrance Stevenson high risk lifestyle pornographer and criminal lawyer shot to death
• DS - David Szach convicted for the murder of criminal lawyer Derrence Stevenson

DECEASED
DSD - Denis St Denis hairdresser
RBD - Richard Dutton Brown the magistrate
PF - Pru Firman
SN - Sarah Novak
BG - Brian Gant
NB - Noel Brook also known as Di Di
TP - Trevor Peters of the diaries
PM - Dr. Peter Leslie Millhouse acquitted for the murder of Neil Muir

LIVING until further notice
BVE - Bevan von Einem also known as 'Bevbang' to inner circle and 'Vonnie' in the prison system
Mr R - The businessman name suppressed
SGW - Dr Stephen George Woodards
Mr. B - Teenage prostitute and informant name suppressed
JL - Jacquie the nurse mentioned in the ebook as a good friend of and who rented a unit close to BVEs unit we assume name suppressed?
LT - Lewis Turtur also known as 'Louie'
A - The older teenage boy Peter Stogneff's parents feel may have had something to do with their son's abduction
RR - Raymond Rozankowski who was a friend of BVE and lived in the same street as A

DK - Darko Kastellan assistant to Gambardella
GG - Gino Gambardella chiropractor fled to Italy

Out of Sight - The Untold Story of Adelaide's Gay Hate Murders

The Cases of Forensic Pathologist Colin Manock

Use this thread below to lodge media, maps and photos for quick reference.

Unsolved - The Family Murders - MEDIA

This thread may be used to post the Family Murders media related content. To include press and gathered photographs from various sources. Please feel free to post but as this is a no discussion thread, comments will be deleted or moved at discretion. WHO'S WHO VICTIMS AB - Alan Barnes 16yo...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[BlueE]

Looks like there's inconsistent views on the skill level required to cut up the bodies;

Starting at the bottom of page 60, Young Blood by Bob O'Brien

---
There was a lack of agreement between the professionals as to whether or not the mutilation was done with some professional knowledge and skill. Ray Dowd worked on the advice that there was some skill involved. He said that the semi-professional nature of some of the cuts suggested that the killer could be a person with a medical or para-medical background or in a job where knowledge of the joints and cuts could be learned. The difficulty was that on 30 Aug 1979, the Chief Meat Inspector for the abattoirs gave a statement. He had expert knowledge about boning and skinning of animals. He believed the skinning was not consistent with a person having any expertise in this area. It was done in a rough manner. He also observed roughness in the area of the legs where the muscular tissue was removed. Boning skills were not present. He said that a saw was used on the bone while a knife was used on the flesh. This meant that the person who butchered Neil Muir was not likely to be an employee of an abattoir.

On page 70, it says this;

At the doctor's trial, the prosecutor argued that the dissection of Muir had to have been done by someone who had medical training and knowledge of anatomy. Dr Robert Britten-Jones gave this evidence but couldn't say if the person who did the dissection was a doctor.

---

So there's definitely some doubt and conflicting views. I think the answer is somewhere in between. I think Woodards took an opportunity to try his hand at surgery (I believe he's a GP but can't be sure).

And although Millhouse says he doesn't do surgery, he does have a degree in GP and surgery. Maybe that's standard or common?

I'm wondering if what you quote on pg 60 is summarising all the boys murders as reading each case there seemed to be a different skill level used in cutting each, some where a saw did seem to be used.

However looking at the clearest quotes and description of the surgeon Dr Robert Britten-Jones who gave evidence at Neil Muir's trail, it would be impossible for a saw to be used in that case, with the level of skill is dissecting the fingers from the hands and the ball of the femur from the socket of the pelvis.

It's interesting that a butchers bonding skills were quoted for when the muscular tissue was removed. The trial didn't start until around March of 1980, so was this a quote in August 30th 1979 from the paper? Aside from all the depravities Neil Muir when alive and dead suffered, why would they be boning the muscle from the bones anyway?

All standard Dr's graduate with basic surgical knowledge but speicalising in surgery is many more years training. What was being described by Dr Britten-Jones was somebody surgical trained, whether formally or not. Peter Millhouse claims that the skillful surgery was well above his skill and that's believable.

It's a shame the trial transcript of Peter Leslie Millhouse for Neil Muir murder doesn't seem to be added to the SA Supreme Court records for 1980, not sure why?

 

[Bits]

Are Peters diaries the first time Denis St Denis has ever come up in relation to the murders?

No. He was involved in the 1984 court case (that is when the photo that I posted upthread was taken).The diaries were found after Peters died in 2013.

 

[PaulSubetro]

I'm wondering if what you quote on pg 60 is summarising all the boys murders as reading each case there seemed to be a different skill level used in cutting each, some where a saw did seem to be used.

However looking at the clearest quotes and description of the surgeon Dr Robert Britten-Jones who gave evidence at Neil Muir's trail, it would be impossible for a saw to be used in that case, with the level of skill is dissecting the fingers from the hands and the ball of the femur from the socket of the pelvis.

It's interesting that a butchers bonding skills were quoted for when the muscular tissue was removed. The trial didn't start until around March of 1980, so was this a quote in August 30th 1979 from the paper? Aside from all the depravities Neil Muir when alive and dead suffered, why would they be boning the muscle from the bones anyway?

All standard Dr's graduate with basic surgical knowledge but speicalising in surgery is many more years training. What was being described by Dr Britten-Jones was somebody surgical trained, whether formally or not. Peter Millhouse claims that the skillful surgery was well above his skill and that's believable.

It's a shame the trial transcript of Peter Leslie Millhouse for Neil Muir murder doesn't seem to be added to the SA Supreme Court records for 1980, not sure why?

It's specific to Muir. It's in the chapter on Millhouse and immediately before he's writing about the injuries specific to Muir.

There's an array of explanations;

1. The author (Bob O'Brien who was one of the lead investigators on the case) unwittingly summarised injuries of all the boys rather than justones pertaining to Muir.
2. The abattoir worker felt he had to protect his industry and colleagues so was downplayed the skill level
3. Dr Robert Britten-Jones exaggerated the skill level because he might have been on "Team Cops" or "Team Justice" or may have had relationships with cops or prosecutors, or may have even been paid. This cash for comments is used often in criminal trials.
4. Millhouse has downplayed his surgical prowess, or more specifically has exaggerated the skill level required. Maybe what he did as part of his degree was enough?



This is what I think;

- If Dr Robert Britten-Jones is to be believed, then Millhouse is out (he's a 500/1 long shot to be involved anyway IMO)
- But what about Woodards? I think he is also a GP. I haven't seen any information that shows he's had a background in surgery.
- So does that mean there's another Doctor (a surgeon) involved?
- Woodards lived with Mr R (St Peters I think). Woodards and Brown were lovers. Woodards and Brown were also being investigated (just prior to the murders) for drug-raping young men. Police also, some years back, re-focused on the case and said they were investigating "The Business Man", "The Doctor" and the "Male Prostitute". These were the main players. It was easily deduced that these people were Mr R, Mr B and Woodards. Woodards is the doctor. If there was another doctor who was a surgeon involved, then this doctor (rather than Woodards) would be one of the main suspects.


So for the person who sliced and diced Muir to be a practising surgeon, it would mean there's another suspect SAPOL are completely unaware of. Or he is on their radar but for some reason they are prioritising the less involved Woodards.

I think this is all unlikely. To me this case is like a nearly complete jigsaw puzzle. Everything fits. Police know everything fit, just just don't know the finer details and don't have physical evidence (the smoking gun).

This is a very attractive crime story. It's got everything - taboo crimes involving multiple people, suppressed names and constant claims of a cover up. Because of 40 years of Chinese whispers of a cover up, I feel many people try to make this case a lot more complicated than it really is (I'm not referring to you here btw, just people in general). I think some people just want to engineer a "thriller" like it's a movie.

Based on what we know about who the main suspects are, this is what I think happened;

1. Dr Robert Britten-Jones exaggerated the skill level. There's plenty of reasons for this
2. The amount of skill level a standard GP would have has been downplayed

In a nutshell, the average Joe would not be able to make those cuts. But a GP who is not (or has not been) a practising surgeon would have enough knowledge to make those cuts.



ps - on the subject of removing the muscles - I too find this interesting. It seems unnecessary for purpose. It could have been the "doctor" getting in some practice or BVE being a sadistic campaigner.

 

[PaulSubetro]

No. He was involved in the 1984 court case (that is when the photo that I posted upthread was taken).The diaries were found after Peters died in 2013.

I wonder why he was a witness? I can't find the court transcripts. Maybe he was a character witness?

 

[Bits]

I wonder why he was a witness? I can't find the court transcripts. Maybe he was a character witness?

Maybe to verify about BVE regularly getting his hair dyed and confirming details and dates of that? They were trying to link the hairs found in Richard's clothing to BVE.

 

[BlueE]

It's specific to Muir. It's in the chapter on Millhouse and immediately before he's writing about the injuries specific to Muir.

There's an array of explanations;

1. The author (Bob O'Brien who was one of the lead investigators on the case) unwittingly summarised injuries of all the boys rather than justones pertaining to Muir.
2. The abattoir worker felt he had to protect his industry and colleagues so was downplayed the skill level
3. Dr Robert Britten-Jones exaggerated the skill level because he might have been on "Team Cops" or "Team Justice" or may have had relationships with cops or prosecutors, or may have even been paid. This cash for comments is used often in criminal trials.
4. Millhouse has downplayed his surgical prowess, or more specifically has exaggerated the skill level required. Maybe what he did as part of his degree was enough?



This is what I think;

- If Dr Robert Britten-Jones is to be believed, then Millhouse is out (he's a 500/1 long shot to be involved anyway IMO)
- But what about Woodards? I think he is also a GP. I haven't seen any information that shows he's had a background in surgery.
- So does that mean there's another Doctor (a surgeon) involved?
- Woodards lived with Mr R (St Peters I think). Woodards and Brown were lovers. Woodards and Brown were also being investigated (just prior to the murders) for drug-raping young men. Police also, some years back, re-focused on the case and said they were investigating "The Business Man", "The Doctor" and the "Male Prostitute". These were the main players. It was easily deduced that these people were Mr R, Mr B and Woodards. Woodards is the doctor. If there was another doctor who was a surgeon involved, then this doctor (rather than Woodards) would be one of the main suspects.


So for the person who sliced and diced Muir to be a practising surgeon, it would mean there's another suspect SAPOL are completely unaware of. Or he is on their radar but for some reason they are prioritising the less involved Woodards.

I think this is all unlikely. To me this case is like a nearly complete jigsaw puzzle. Everything fits. Police know everything fit, just just don't know the finer details and don't have physical evidence (the smoking gun).

This is a very attractive crime story. It's got everything - taboo crimes involving multiple people, suppressed names and constant claims of a cover up. Because of 40 years of Chinese whispers of a cover up, I feel many people try to make this case a lot more complicated than it really is (I'm not referring to you here btw, just people in general). I think some people just want to engineer a "thriller" like it's a movie.

Based on what we know about who the main suspects are, this is what I think happened;

1. Dr Robert Britten-Jones exaggerated the skill level. There's plenty of reasons for this
2. The amount of skill level a standard GP would have has been downplayed

In a nutshell, the average Joe would not be able to make those cuts. But a GP who is not (or has not been) a practising surgeon would have enough knowledge to make those cuts.



ps - on the subject of removing the muscles - I too find this interesting. It seems unnecessary for purpose. It could have been the "doctor" getting in some practice or BVE being a sadistic campaigner.

Dr Robert Britten-Jones in the quotes printed in the papers at the time of him testifying only describes the way the fingers and hips were disarticulated. He's giving facts. He says this is very skillful and this is correct. He doesn't need to exaggerate he only needed to describe how the body was found.

There is very little if any room in the ball and socket hip capsule with the bones articulating smoothly against each other and for there to be no marks at all on the bones when the femur was removed is expert surgery. A surgeon doing a hip replacement would possibly mark the ball of the femur bone, knowing it wasn't going to be put back.

A saw would have been used to cut open the sternum to remove the heart and lungs. Ignoring the obvious reason of "Why would you do this as it's not in the abdominal cavity where the disarticulated and debraided limbs were sewn into?), this is also a complicated operation considering heart and lung removals were very rare around the world at that time. I presume the sternum was closed before disposal.

All of the surgery was supposed to take three hours. During normal medical training a single GP would have three hours a week surgical practice on cadavas for a year to get the same result.

This is not BVE, it's almost like someone or more that one person giving a master class to others who also might have participated.

 

[PaulSubetro]

Dr Robert Britten-Jones in the quotes printed in the papers at the time of him testifying only describes the way the fingers and hips were disarticulated. He's giving facts. He says this is very skillful and this is correct. He doesn't need to exaggerate he only needed to describe how the body was found.

There is very little if any room in the ball and socket hip capsule with the bones articulating smoothly against each other and for there to be no marks at all on the bones when the femur was removed is expert surgery. A surgeon doing a hip replacement would possibly mark the ball of the femur bone, knowing it wasn't going to be put back.

A saw would have been used to cut open the sternum to remove the heart and lungs. Ignoring the obvious reason of "Why would you do this as it's not in the abdominal cavity where the disarticulated and debraided limbs were sewn into?), this is also a complicated operation considering heart and lung removals were very rare around the world at that time. I presume the sternum was closed before disposal.

All of the surgery was supposed to take three hours. During normal medical training a single GP would have three hours a week surgical practice on cadavas for a year to get the same result.

This is not BVE, it's almost like someone or more that one person giving a master class to others who also might have participated.

When I was a kid I saw my Dad and my Grandfather slaughter sheep on different occasions. There were no problems removing the internal organs. You're comparing removing organs that aren't intended to be reused to surgical operations where the organs have to be intact so they can be put into someone else's body.

These killers weren't performing triple heart bypass surgery. They were removing organs. Possibly to conceal the victims had been given drugs, possibly because the doctor involved want to have a play around at surgery or possibly because one of them is a sick campaigner.

If you do a quick google search there are plenty of examples of paid witnesses. There's even companies that will give you a quote for a witness testimony.


I'm not saying that Dr Britten-Jones is not necessarily correct. I'm saying for him to be accurate means there's probably another doctor heavily involved that we don't know about and that SAPOL are also probably unaware of. Couple that with SAPOL's take on the cutting at the time and a documented history of biased expert witness, I think that directs the probability towards the testimony being exaggerated.

If I found out Woodards trained as or worked as a surgeon, I'd change my mind. I'd be licking that testimony like it was a twin-pole.

 

[Kurve]

ps - on the subject of removing the muscles - I too find this interesting. It seems unnecessary for purpose. It could have been the "doctor" getting in some practice or BVE being a sadistic campaigner.

I understand the focus on surgical skill within the framing of a prosecution against Millhouse, which failed and the jury was back in a cracking, decisive 80 minutes.

Outside of that framing, not necessarily IMO. There's reasons for it I don't really want to dwell on because it's gross.

Millhouse went into a melt, maybe some grief and knowing the police are coming for him. He has secrets and everybody's going to find out what they are, he needs time to process in safety, maybe a thought 'Is someone trying to set me up?'



Muir's dismemberment was over the top. Any doctor who wanted to be rid of an addict which Muir was, could have found a thousand other ways to do it and keep his hands clean.

To why Neil Muir was cut down to a very small package might it have something to do with the weight and carrying? The bag was likely less than 18 kg.

 

[PaulSubetro]

It says Millhouse was giving Muir methadone in return for sexual favours including having Muir pi ss on him. That would have been a pretty sweet deal for Neil. Bit salty for Millhouse though.

 

[Bits]

Because he was found so soon after death, it would have been obvious that knives/saws were used. But I can’t help wondering whether there were no knife marks on the ball of the hip because this was removed by some other means - eg twisting it out of the socket. As someone pointed out earlier, there was no need for surgical niceties or preservation of body parts so no need to follow conventional practices. I am probably wrong though because there would have been evidence of a tearing or ripping as opposed to cutting surely?

As for why the fingers were in pieces, well that’s just unnecessary given that they weren’t removed to de-identify him, but left in situ. Someone got carried away? Also, what about Mr B’s evidence that BVE asked him to join in with Mr R because they were going to do some surgery on Barnes? Once poor Muir was in pieces small enough to parcel him up, was all the unnecessary chopping and disarticulation just for fun? And why would you tie his head back on after you’ve gone to all the trouble to cut it off? A scary mind involved for sure.

 

[PaulSubetro]

Because he was found so soon after death, it would have been obvious that knives/saws were used. But I can’t help wondering whether there were no knife marks on the ball of the hip because this was removed by some other means - eg twisting it out of the socket. As someone pointed out earlier, there was no need for surgical niceties or preservation of body parts so no need to follow conventional practices. I am probably wrong though because there would have been evidence of a tearing or ripping as opposed to cutting surely?

As for why the fingers were in pieces, well that’s just unnecessary given that they weren’t removed to de-identify him, but left in situ. Someone got carried away? Also, what about Mr B’s evidence that BVE asked him to join in with Mr R because they were going to do some surgery on Barnes? Once poor Muir was in pieces small enough to parcel him up, was all the unnecessary chopping and disarticulation just for fun? And why would you tie his head back on after you’ve gone to all the trouble to cut it off? A scary mind involved for sure.

I wonder if Muir had some drug debts with some of his murderers?

 

[Kurve]

As for why the fingers were in pieces, well that’s just unnecessary given that they weren’t removed to de-identify him, but left in situ. Someone got carried away?

Psychotic imo, the kind of violent psychosis we might see more often now with ice users. There was also a lot of LSD around then, that might push someone with the bent for mutilation into more extremes.

I think the bag was meant to drop to the bottom of the water, whoever the git was that threw it over wasn't thinking. More like panic just to get rid of it and not be seen with it. It would have sunk too, with the viscera/internals removed no gasses to float it back up.

 

[Kurve]

And why would you tie his head back on after you’ve gone to all the trouble to cut it off?

Gross but the head needed to be stopped from rolling around? The clothesline kept it all together and could be used like a handle.

Sorry.

 

[BlueE]

When I was a kid I saw my Dad and my Grandfather slaughter sheep on different occasions. There were no problems removing the internal organs. You're comparing removing organs that aren't intended to be reused to surgical operations where the organs have to be intact so they can be put into someone else's body.

These killers weren't performing triple heart bypass surgery. They were removing organs. Possibly to conceal the victims had been given drugs, possibly because the doctor involved want to have a play around at surgery or possibly because one of them is a sick campaigner.

If you do a quick google search there are plenty of examples of paid witnesses. There's even companies that will give you a quote for a witness testimony.


I'm not saying that Dr Britten-Jones is not necessarily correct. I'm saying for him to be accurate means there's probably another doctor heavily involved that we don't know about and that SAPOL are also probably unaware of. Couple that with SAPOL's take on the cutting at the time and a documented history of biased expert witness, I think that directs the probability towards the testimony being exaggerated.

If I found out Woodards trained as or worked as a surgeon, I'd change my mind. I'd be licking that testimony like it was a twin-pole.

I did wonder about the butcher/abattoir worker aspect so it was interesting that this seemed to be rejected right after finding Neil Muir's body.

"Dissected by someone with surgical skills" was summed up by the judge. It's strange that the trial verdict wasn't put on the SA Supreme Court as this would have given far more details and people are left without all the facts to make it fit their own theories. However the little that is described about the fingers and hips being dissected gives a good idea that a high level of skill was required.

What happened to Muir and how his body was disposed of was horrific in a way that's hared to find a reason to explain why? It's almost like a sick campaigner was showing off their surgical and boning skills in a "master class".

Although there is not much information on the heart and lungs which were never found, to saw open the sternum, remove the organs then close the sternum makes me wonder ... and I get a name?

Stephen Woodard's name should come up but I think he was only a GP. However how seems to have got away with the multiple charges of rape against young boys in 2011 and still practicing or living in Bondi is inexplicable.

 

[Kurve]

to saw open the sternum

You dont need to saw open the sternum to remove the heart and lungs. Do you have a reference for that? I haven't seen anything about that in the Neil Muir files.

 

[PaulSubetro]

I have a feeling there is more to play out here.

Turtur has gone public. TP's diaries name names. Mr B is hopefully still out there. Turtur claimed in Frozen Lies he saw Mr R come over when BVE had an drugged male.

I think SAPOL should have a crack at removing those suppression orders then hope they have one last crack of getting some truth. If I were them I'd be laying some charges so at the very least there will be public records of statements/denials/alibis etc. Even if they don't end up with a conviction, put the blowtorch on these people.

 

[Kurve]

I did wonder about the butcher/abattoir worker aspect so it was interesting that this seemed to be rejected right after finding Neil Muir's body.

It wasn't completely rejected, a meat inspector played it down and gave his opinion. They all do it, trying to put distance between the industry and these types of crimes. Because the bottom line is a lot of killers have been known to work in abattoirs, it's a tough place for hard men.

"Dissected by someone with surgical skills" was summed up by the judge.

Are you referring to something the judge said at the Committal in the Magistrates Court before he was committed to trial and on untested and unchallenged testimony?

Although there is not much information on the heart and lungs which were never found, to saw open the sternum, remove the organs then close the sternum makes me wonder ... and I get a name?

I haven't seen anything about Muir's sternum having been sawn open and closed because it's not necessary if you need to remove the heart and lungs. A doctor, slaughterman or even a chef would have known that. Do you have a link please because that's interesting if correct.

 

[PaulSubetro]

The Transgenders

This is confusing, but I have potentially untangled most of it.

There are probably 6 transgenders;

• Lewis Turtur
• Pru Firman
• Miss K
• Sarah Novak
• Noel Terrence Brooks
• Brian Gant

The Alberton house was a 3 bedroom house. Sharing this were two females (post-op transsexuals) and one male (transvestite/drag queen). They were Firman, Miss K and Turtur.

Sarah Novak, who I think was also a post-op transgender, lived at 46 Shipsters Rd, Kensington Park

Brooks and Gant were transvestites/drag queens.

After BVE's trial the Alberton crew (Turtur, Firman, Miss K) relocated to Sydney. Turtur is still there today. Firman returned to Adelaide and lived with Novak on Shipsters Rd.

Gant relocated to Perth.

It is possible Miss K and Sarah Novak are the same person


Note: we know for sure Turtur and Firman lived at Alberton. I initially assumed Brooks was the third but Young Blood says there were two post opp girls that BVE referred to as "P" and "K" and a gay man. "P" is Firman, the gay man is Turtur. But "K" is unlikely to be Brooks (99% sure he's a dude) and unlikely to be Novak. I'm also sure Turtur and Gant are/were dudes whereas Firman was a post-op TG. In Frozen Lies, Turtur doesn't know Trevor Peters so couldn't have lived next door. That means Firman and Novak lived next door to Peters.

If anyone learns anything more, let me know.

 

[GreyCrow]

I wonder if Muir had some drug debts with some of his murderers?

This was the initial thinking of police. Yet some of the injuries inflicted are not even in a drug lords thinking process. I think its muddied the waters the different category of injuries and as I mentioned before the ''differences'' between other victims

I am not going to catalogue the injuries as they are in this thread already but it feels like 2 different people were involved.

 

[PaulSubetro]

Maybe to verify about BVE regularly getting his hair dyed and confirming details and dates of that? They were trying to link the hairs found in Richard's clothing to BVE.

Pretty much. In Young Blood he said to police that BVE came in to get his hair dyed the day after Kelvin went missing. Must have been a pretty mild flu.

 

[PaulSubetro]

This was the initial thinking of police. Yet some of the injuries inflicted are not even in a drug lords thinking process. I think its muddied the waters the different category of injuries and as I mentioned before the ''differences'' between other victims

I am not going to catalogue the injuries as they are in this thread already but it feels like 2 different people were involved.

I don't think Muir was killed because of drug debts but I think it's possible he may have been chosen (as opposed to someone else) because of this, or he sustained worse (and unnecessary) injuries because one of his murderers had a score to settle.

 

[PaulSubetro]

Miss Russell

There was a "Miss Russell" who came up in a court transcript mentioned by me a week or so ago. She testified that BVE told her he had fist-xxxxed a young guy and inserted medical instruments into his anus.

She was a work colleague of BVE's at Pipeline Supplies of Australia. She was a bit of a ***-hag and frequented the Mars Bar and was friendly with BVE. One night she arrived at a nightspot and BVE was outside with a young straight male. BVE ran up to her, gave her a hug and whispered in her ear, "Pretend you're my wife. I told this guy I was waiting for my wife".

Later she asked BVE what happened to the young man and he said what he did to him and then let him sleep it off.

 

[PaulSubetro]

Does anyone feeling like having a crack at filling in the blanks from Trevor Peter's diary?



Here's some info to help you decide;

Excerpts from Young Blood

Page 132 - police interviewed BVE over a drug-rape of a young man. This happened in between Langley and Kelvin. The young man had a torn anus. He was picked up by BVE and taken to the Alberton house to party. The man was there but he said the "girls" were. Police asked BVE who the girls were who lived at the house and had not yet returned home. His answer was, "P" and "K". The victim admitted he had sex with "P" but BVE was in the room at the time! BVE denied this. Firman was charged for this but got off.

Page 137 (at bottom) confirms 2 occupants were post-op and the other not.

Unsure which page - O'Brien describes the house at Alberton and it is a three bedroom house that is in the same style as BVE's house.

Page 111 - When O'Brien was talking to BVE he mentioned he knew Muir and was with him a week prior. He was drinking with Muir at The Duke. Neil wanted him to go to the Lord Melbourne but BVE couldn't because he had to pick up "Miss S" from The Buck. This is probably Sarah Novak.

Excerpts from Frozen Lies

Ep 2 10:50 - Turtur says he hung out with Brian, Noel and Pru. No mention of Novak.

Ep 2 22:30 - they're talking about who would be in the car with BVE when picking up. Turtur says usually "one of the girls, Pru or XXXX". "XXXX" is beeped out.



Excerpt from the article Lost diary gives South Australia police new lead into Alan Barnes murder by The Family

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news...y/news-story/eaf66c4823f20f55981177c02d2bb657


Note: My (limited) understanding of TG is that a "transvestite" is a cross-dresser or drag queen whereas a "transsexual" is either a post-op transgender or a pre-op who intends to have the operation. In this article, "transvestite" seems to refer to a post-op transgender.



Copy this bit and repost in filling in the XXX's. Make sure you put your guesses in bold

-------------------------------------------



The house is one door from another occupied by a close associate of von Einem's.

That person (xxxx), a transvestite, assisted von Einem by luring male hitchhikers into his car in return for drugs. Her former housemate, another transvestite named Pru Firman, who also assisted von Einem, died in 2010.


"Pru Firman (who died in 2010) was sharing a rented house in Alberton in the late '70s or early '80s with another transvestite or sex change named xxx xxxx and xxxxxxx. (The latter is another suspect and close friend of von Einem's, who cannot be named for legal reasons. He is also the brother of a former Olympic athlete.)

"Pru said that Bevan von Einem frequently took drugged young men there to have sex with them. She said that xxxx (the suspect) would always have a back room ready for him and Bevan ready to abuse sexually the boys that Bevan brought there.

"She said that xxxx (the suspect) would always have the bed made and candles ready. She said that xxx (another suspect who is an eastern suburbs businessman) was there to meet Bevan 'frequently'. When I questioned frequently, she said 'yes, all the time'.''

"He was there lots and lots of times. He took the drugged boys after Bevan and xxx (the suspect) had finished with them. Sometimes xxx (the suspect) went with him.''

Peters wrote that following von Einem's arrest over the Kelvin murder the suspect and two of the transvestites moved to Sydney to live.

"All 3 of them had been actively involved with Bevan by dressing in drag and luring the young hitchhikers into Bevan's car in exchange for mandrax and sepapax, Pru said,'' Peters states.

Peters also wrote that Firman's housemate and fellow transvestite (xxxxx), who lives in Shipsters Rd at Kensington Park, was also sexually involved "with Bevan and drugged hitchhikers''.

"She (he) went as a female decoy in order to get mandrax from Bevan,'' he states.

"Xxxxx knows a lot more than she says. I know that for a fact."

 

[PaulSubetro]

Here's my guesses;

Edit: I just paused Frozen Lies Foxtel Episode 5 and some names are not covered. I can all but confirm 3 names.

Black text = confirmed

Red text = not yet confirmed


The house is one door from another occupied by a close associate of von Einem's.

That person (Sarah Novak), a transvestite, assisted von Einem by luring male hitchhikers into his car in return for drugs. Her former housemate, another transvestite named Pru Firman, who also assisted von Einem, died in 2010.



"Pru Firman (who died in 2010) was sharing a rented house in Alberton in the late '70s or early '80s with another transvestite or sex change named Miss K and Lewis Turtur. (The latter is another suspect and close friend of von Einem's, who cannot be named for legal reasons. He is also the brother of a former Olympic athlete.)

"Pru said that Bevan von Einem frequently took drugged young men there to have sex with them. She said that Lewis Turtur (the suspect) would always have a back room ready for him and Bevan ready to abuse sexually the boys that Bevan brought there.

"She said that Lewis Turtur (the suspect) would always have the bed made and candles ready. She said that Mr R (another suspect who is an eastern suburbs businessman) was there to meet Bevan 'frequently'. When I questioned frequently, she said 'yes, all the time'.''

"He was there lots and lots of times. He took the drugged boys after Bevan and Lewis Turtur (the suspect) had finished with them. Sometimes Lewis Turtur (the suspect) went with him.'' ** This paragraph is not covered in Frozen Lies. This missing name on both occasions is Turtur.

Peters wrote that following von Einem's arrest over the Kelvin murder the suspect Lewis Turtur and two of the transvestites (Pru Firman and Miss K) moved to Sydney to live.

"All 3 of them had been actively involved with Bevan by dressing in drag and luring the young hitchhikers into Bevan's car in exchange for mandrax and sepapax, Pru said,'' Peters states.

Peters also wrote that Firman's housemate and fellow transvestite (Sarah Novak), who lives in Shipsters Rd at Kensington Park, was also sexually involved "with Bevan and drugged hitchhikers''.

"She (he) went as a female decoy in order to get mandrax from Bevan,'' he states.

" Sarah Novak knows a lot more than she says. I know that for a fact."

 

[PaulSubetro]

Note: TP's diaries are notes from conversations with Firman and possibly Novak. It's sort of 3rd hand so would have some false parts (even though the general gist matches and fits with other testimonies and known facts)

TP's diaries suggest that Turtur was heavily involved with the rapes and that Mr R would take the boys. Did Mr R take the boys home, have some "fun" and then the boys had to make their way home from there?

It's like Rideshare for rapists.