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

 

[jason_recliner]

Let’s be honest, none of us on here (i assume) know for sure about Mr B/NM police issue. But knowing what i know about sapol and the time, in my opinion it’s plausible that given BVE had seen 3 vice squad (and possibly others) throw Duncan into the river and was allegedly threatened by them, and kept silent about it, and some or most (i believe) vice squad went onto major crime, BVE could have been granted a reasonable amount of unofficial immunity with certain people in sapol and it’s possible someone from major crime or whatever tipped BVE off that his name had been dropped. Police Commissioner had just been sacked by dunstan partly because he was somewhat threatening to clean up the town of its vice which would have included BVE and a great many of his friends. It appears there were all sorts of criminal/police cliques going on around that time. Corruption was rife in sapol and all police forces in aus and in politics around the time. Like i said, we don’t know what happened but it’s certainly plausible i think.

I think that is a huge reach. Not saying it's not possible, but for something of potentially considerable influence it should require a LOT of evidence.

 

[Dell43]

Mark Langley wasn't cut up but he did have part of his intestinal tract removed supposedly to retrieve something that got stuck up there. It was supposedly done in the manner any other surgery would have used so presumably that was Woodards. I guess the question is were the rougher hack jobs of Muir and Stogneff also Woodards or another guy we'll call "the butcher"?

Jez you've read the book and from what I've heard from people on here it heavily implies that the authors believe Colin Manock was "the butcher" is that correct? If so do you believe there's any chance Manock was involved at all or do you think it's more likely Woodards did the lot?

Also just gonna float this out here - Richard Kelvin was the only victim other than the first not to have had something done to his body, either cut up or operated on. Does anybody else think this might have been because of the high profile nature of his abduction so they wanted to try and make it look like it wasn't them who had kidnapped him?

I think it was pretty obvious the same people were involved due to anal injuries and drugs detected in his body. However I'm sure they panicked once they found out it was Richard and the heat this was going to bring.

 

[jason_recliner]

I'm positive BVE was not a witness to Dr. Duncan being thrown into the river, or his subsequent drowning. He was merely driving by as Roger James (Duncan's companion) was staggering up the river bank. Duncan's assailants had already bolted. The bank is very close to the road, allowing BVE to be the good Samaritan. So I can't believe BVE would have wanted or cultivated any relationship with SAPOL, nor would they with him.

Yep. It just seems to be entering into fantasy.

 

[jason_recliner]

There must have been an agreement that BVE would keep his mouth shut about what he had seen and in return police would derail any investigations into what he was doing and also pass on any relevant information.

No. Think about what that would entail. It's so unlikely.

 

[Dell43]

No. Think about what that would entail. It's so unlikely.

Apart from Salisbury affair how would you explain the lack of action investigating BVE

 

[Kurve]

On BVEs police file, whether he saw what happened on the river or not but given he picked up one of the victims, he would be recorded as a 'witness'.

 

[SquiffyRae]

As much as I hate how people misuse Occam's Razor in true crime discussion, I think it's appropriate here. What requires the least amount of assumptions in order for it to be true?

a) Police got told BVE was responsible for 2 murders (verified) and that they either didn't push him hard enough or didn't have any evidence beyond Mr B's story to justify looking into him further (1 assumption depending on which scenario you choose); or

b) BVE saw something the night of Duncan's murder (assumption 1), that SAPOL were aware he saw something (assumption 2, his name as the good samaritan was known but definitely not as a witness to what went on), that they offered him a deal to keep his mouth shut (assumption 3) and that the lack of investigation into him is solely because SAPOL were afraid he'd identify the vice squad officers if he was arrested (assumption 4).

The "BVE knew something" theory requires so much that we can't verify to be going for it in order for it to be true.

Apart from Salisbury affair how would you explain the lack of action investigating BVE

Simple. The only evidence police had against BVE was Mr B's story. Mr B was for all intents and purposes just a street kid. He came in and told this fantastic story, made all the more fantastic by all the holes that are in it where he removed himself from being involved. At this stage, BVE wasn't known to police. You've got a random street kid coming in telling a fantastic story about an "ordinary" accountant with nothing but his word to back it up. All they could do was interview him and once he predictably said "no" to having any involvement you can't really do anything.

I forget if he was briefly under surveillance after NM's murder but even if he was it was quite a while till Peter Stogneff's murder. Police aren't gonna waste their time following a random guy around for years waiting for him to slip up off the word of a single person. Most likely if he was followed, within a month they just went "he's obviously not doing anything shifty, that story was probably bull" and that was the end of it.

They didn't start investigating fully until they made the link between the cocktail of restricted drugs the boys had in their systems and BVE being someone who was prescribed those drugs. This was also just after the story of "George" came out where he accused BVE of raping him. That was when they finally had something more concrete than just Mr B's word or George's against BVE's and it looked like there might be something more to it

 

[Kurve]

Yes, it's easy to get lost in these threads, but it doesn't matter who made the statement. I still can't see any realistically probable mechanism from somebody making a statement to the police to BVE being informed. Why would anybody inform him?

It's been suggested for a long time the reason why Neil was so cruelly treated and horribly mutilated was because he'd become a threat, being accused as an informant would do it or he owed a large drug debt. Ie. He really upset someone.

We never heard anything about Neil owing money or anybody dying like that over a drug debt but we do know there was an informant within, which is a fact.

 

[Dell43]

As much as I hate how people misuse Occam's Razor in true crime discussion, I think it's appropriate here. What requires the least amount of assumptions in order for it to be true?

a) Police got told BVE was responsible for 2 murders (verified) and that they either didn't push him hard enough or didn't have any evidence beyond Mr B's story to justify looking into him further (1 assumption depending on which scenario you choose); or

b) BVE saw something the night of Duncan's murder (assumption 1), that SAPOL were aware he saw something (assumption 2, his name as the good samaritan was known but definitely not as a witness to what went on), that they offered him a deal to keep his mouth shut (assumption 3) and that the lack of investigation into him is solely because SAPOL were afraid he'd identify the vice squad officers if he was arrested (assumption 4).

The "BVE knew something" theory requires so much that we can't verify to be going for it in order for it to be true.



Simple. The only evidence police had against BVE was Mr B's story. Mr B was for all intents and purposes just a street kid. He came in and told this fantastic story, made all the more fantastic by all the holes that are in it where he removed himself from being involved. At this stage, BVE wasn't known to police. You've got a random street kid coming in telling a fantastic story about an "ordinary" accountant with nothing but his word to back it up. All they could do was interview him and once he predictably said "no" to having any involvement you can't really do anything.

I forget if he was briefly under surveillance after NM's murder but even if he was it was quite a while till Peter Stogneff's murder. Police aren't gonna waste their time following a random guy around for years waiting for him to slip up off the word of a single person. Most likely if he was followed, within a month they just went "he's obviously not doing anything shifty, that story was probably bull" and that was the end of it.

They didn't start investigating fully until they made the link between the cocktail of restricted drugs the boys had in their systems and BVE being someone who was prescribed those drugs. This was also just after the story of "George" came out where he accused BVE of raping him. That was when they finally had something more concrete than just Mr B's word or George's against BVE's and it looked like there might be something more to it

My comments about lack of action investigating BVE are in relation to picking up and abusing hitchhikers not any of the murders. Upto 150 boys were reported as being picked up most of these well before police linking him to restricted drugs. Im sure I have read that many people contacted police and identified BVE as a person of interest.

 

[Bits]

Jez you've read the book and from what I've heard from people on here it heavily implies that the authors believe Colin Manock was "the butcher" is that correct?

The book clearly refers to a western suburbs butcher with a shop in Grange. It refers to him as a gourmet butcher who also worked in hotels and pubs. Definitely not Manock.

There are anecdotes in the book referring to a bearded British man, and to the possible involvement of a pathologist. Dr Manock is very litigious. If it is him then the book has worded things very carefully. Logically there is a reason for the inclusion of this information but it is not directly stated.

 

[JezMez]

Mark Langley wasn't cut up but he did have part of his intestinal tract removed supposedly to retrieve something that got stuck up there. It was supposedly done in the manner any other surgery would have used so presumably that was Woodards. I guess the question is were the rougher hack jobs of Muir and Stogneff also Woodards or another guy we'll call "the butcher"?

Jez you've read the book and from what I've heard from people on here it heavily implies that the authors believe Colin Manock was "the butcher" is that correct? If so do you believe there's any chance Manock was involved at all or do you think it's more likely Woodards did the lot?

Also just gonna float this out here - Richard Kelvin was the only victim other than the first not to have had something done to his body, either cut up or operated on. Does anybody else think this might have been because of the high profile nature of his abduction so they wanted to try and make it look like it wasn't them who had kidnapped him?

The ebook suggests Manock is (or could be) the surgeon. I think this theory is based purely on;

1. The testimony of Dr Britten-Jones that a highly skilled surgeon or pathologist was needed to cut up Neil
2. Manock was gay and cruised the beats. He took prostitutes from the beats to the hospital he worked at to have sex with them.
3. He ended up marrying or long term partnering a TG (full op I believe)

The authors had access to a lot of official material - court case transcripts I believe, and potentially police files, coroner's reports etc. They knew who the suspects were from the 1983 Kelvin investigation. I don't believe Manock was ever a suspect.

The ebook says there were 7 closely knit suspects who were all born in the 1940s, and all bar BVE had military fathers.

Those 7 are;

BVE
DPR (Mr R)
MGL (Mr R's boyfriend)
SGW
DSD
RDB

I would speculate the 7th name is Donald John Storen, born 1949. Although, it could be the butcher.

Manock was born in 1937.

Furthermore, like an article published years earlier, the e-book also says the main players are BVE, Mr R, Mr B and SGW.

The most like scenario for me still is;

- Woodards is the surgeon
- The same person who cut up Muir also cut up Stogneff, therefore Millhouse is not the surgeon
- There's not enough blood in Millhouse's for Muir to have been murdered there (btw Millhouse was born in the 1930s)
- Millhouse probably had some involvement, but who knows how deep that was
- The testimony from Dr Briteen-Jones is over played. I'd certainly like a surgeon to revisit the case and determine how long it would take a physio with a medical doctorate to do that surgery.

So my opinion on Manock - although I haven't ruled it out, I don't see enough evidence to seriously consider it. If some more information comes along and points in that direction, my ears will certainly prick up.

"The butcher" or "the butcher from Grange" is a different guy.

A witness contacted police (during the Kelvin investigation IIRC) and said he knew of two men who frequented the beats who treated young gay men (rent boys I assume) violently. One man was BVE, the other a gormet butcher who lived in Grange.

I had heard of the butcher (fleetingly) prior to the ebook. The e-book mentions him about five times but it never goes anywhere.

Do I think the butcher is involved? Not at this stage, but I think he's a stronger option than Manock. I think some of those cuts on Muir are more something a butcher would have experience at. When does a surgeon have to de-articulate someone? "Got a car crash victim, need to perform surgery, let's de-articulate his arm at the elbow joint.", or "let's cut his finger out, down to the wrist".

Two of the victims were cut into pieces. While I think this was Woodards and by the time they got to Langley he lost interest, it could be that another person was involved in just the Muir and Stogneff murders. The butcher probably had access to benches, privacy, equipment etc (although the autopsy appently says a saw was used to chop the boys, not a cleaver). Also consider where Muir and Stogneff were dumped as opposed to the other boys - Muir not too far from Grange, Stogneff on the same side of the city as opposed to the other boys.

Police knew BVE's network. For the butcher to be involved, police had to miss this. Add that to the fact that Muir was seemingly cut with a surgical saw rather than a cleaver....

So the butcher right now is still a no for me but I definitely haven't ruled it out.

 

[JezMez]

Apart from Salisbury affair how would you explain the lack of action investigating BVE

Par for the course I'm afraid.

Time and time again, I look at murder cases in Australia and the incompetence of our police is astounding. This is a worldwide phenomenon, but let's just stick to Australia.

Why does this happen to police forces?

1. The smart kids go to university (especially back in the day). Private organisations have a healthy dose of intelligent and highly intelligent people spread across them from top to bottom. Our state police forces - large organisations with a much lower intelligence average.

2. Even more importantly, it's a Govt. Department. There's a massive difference in culture and efficiency between private enterprise and government. I've had plenty of dealings with government departments over the years in a professional capacity and the incompetence is staggering (seriously, across the board). It's simply mind-blowing. Someone should do a study on two twins - once they finish university, put one in a private corporation and one into a government department. In five years one will turn into a window-licking ball of incompetence.

Also consider the lack of technology back then. It took them ages to learn BVE had come onto the radar at Holden Hill CID when George was r*ped. Info was in filing cabinets in different locations with no way of really sharing that information.

There's just no way police were on some sort conspiracy to let BVE go about his business.

 

[JezMez]

It's been suggested for a long time the reason why Neil was so cruelly treated and horribly mutilated was because he'd become a threat, being accused as an informant would do it or he owed a large drug debt. Ie. He really upset someone.

We never heard anything about Neil owing money or anybody dying like that over a drug debt but we do know there was an informant within, which is a fact.

He wasn't tortured differently to the other boys. He wasn't stabbed multiple times in a fit of rage. The surgery happened post mortem. Similar surgery happened to Stogneff.

Neil's injuries look more like experimental surgery than punishment to me. Possibly they intended to conceal identification then changed their minds. Maybe they got to a point they knew they didn't have time to find two different dump site? Maybe it's even simpler - they only had two plastic bags.

 

[JezMez]

My comments about lack of action investigating BVE are in relation to picking up and abusing hitchhikers not any of the murders. Upto 150 boys were reported as being picked up most of these well before police linking him to restricted drugs. Im sure I have read that many people contacted police and identified BVE as a person of interest.

I think most of it came out after BVE was charged. Actually, I think a lot came out in 1989 when SAPOL tried to put together a propensity case against BVE for Barnes and Langley.

A lot of boys wouldn't have reported their rapes. Add to that the lack of technology to see all the different reports because they were made at different police stations....

The figure of 150 - also came from testimony in 1989/90 from BVE accomplices - Mr B, Turtur etc. It dawned on them just how often BVE was picking up youths and young men.

 

[John Barnes]

To start with I love keyboard heroes who don’t know crap from clay . I started with “ this is what I think happened “ . It is same thing I believe and so do a lot of the cops . In the 1990 trial b said in early July that there was a meeting in Rundle mull were bve said he had a phone call from the cops about Alan’s murder . That is what put me on the path of Neil being killed over same one talking to that cops . Everything else aka the boys recognising bve is again what I have put together and the evidence points that way or more boys would have been killed. Ps I don’t get anything from others posts I lived this crap so don’t talk rubbish


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[JezMez]

To start with I love keyboard heroes who don’t know crap from clay . I started with “ this is what I think happened “ . It is same thing I believe and so do a lot of the cops . In the 1990 trial b said in early July that there was a meeting in Rundle mull were bve said he had a phone call from the cops about Alan’s murder . That is what put me on the path of Neil being killed over same one talking to that cops . Everything else aka the boys recognising bve is again what I have put together and the evidence points that way or more boys would have been killed. Ps I don’t get anything from others posts I lived this crap so don’t talk rubbish

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Hey Charlie, I've read and searched the transcript. It's not in there. Also consider, police are unlikely to make first contact with a potential murder suspect via phone, all publications claim BVE was first spoken to on Sep 2 and, the 1990 pre-trial was all about Barnes and Langley.

 

[Kurve]

Hey Charlie, I've read and searched the transcript.

You are entirely without shame.

police are unlikely to make first contact with a potential murder suspect via phone

Really. And yet they do, quite a lot.

 

[John Barnes]

Hey Charlie, I've read and searched the transcript. It's not in there. Also consider, police are unlikely to make first contact with a potential murder suspect via phone, all publications claim BVE was first spoken to on Sep 2 and, the 1990 pre-trial was all about Barnes and Langley.

There are bits missing including the meeting . There was a packed courtroom and I am not the only one who heard it . My sister Mandy has is in her notes too . The cops rang bve to make a time to talk to him about Alan . Yes they ring you as they have rang me over things they wanted to question me on . I had a look at the transaction you have , it is missing same stuff . I sat there though it . It is in the place were b was under cross and he said just after that he had to put up with r being in the court room


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Dell43]

To start with I love keyboard heroes who don’t know crap from clay . I started with “ this is what I think happened “ . It is same thing I believe and so do a lot of the cops . In the 1990 trial b said in early July that there was a meeting in Rundle mull were bve said he had a phone call from the cops about Alan’s murder . That is what put me on the path of Neil being killed over same one talking to that cops . Everything else aka the boys recognising bve is again what I have put together and the evidence points that way or more boys would have been killed. Ps I don’t get anything from others posts I lived this crap so don’t talk rubbish


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Hi Charlie, good to see you posting again your comments are always interesting and informative.

I seem to remember you making a post about the death of Derrance Stevenson, I have looked back through this thread to check exactly what you said but couldn't find your post. Did you suggest that Derrance was killed by Szach because he was planning to drug Szach and then allow some of his crew to abuse him? Apologies if I have mixed you up with someone else.

 

[John Barnes]

Hi Charlie, good to see you posting again your comments are always interesting and informative.

I seem to remember you making a post about the death of Derrance Stevenson, I have looked back through this thread to check exactly what you said but couldn't find your post. Did you suggest that Derrance was killed by Szach because he was planning to drug Szach and then allow some of his crew to abuse him? Apologies if I have mixed you up with someone else.

Yes from what I have been told that was the plan . I have not gone into the case fully but that was the jist of it . It had nothing to do with Alan’s death so I stopped looking . Even tho he was in the same crowd as bve and doing the same things the 2 murders were not connected


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Kurve]

Please stop doing this. You're going out of your way to create a problem.

No, I'm not. If you have transcripts that prove your point, put them up here or gonski.

First option is to not give them a heads up - otherwise suspects make themselves scarce and it gives them time to concoct stories and alibis.

There are a thousand reasons why the cops might ring someone first, sometimes it's operational, sometimes it's because they're simply lazy and/or they want to casually invite the suspect in to the police station to throw them into a formal interview set up without an arrest and sometimes it's yes, because they think they're wasting their time and they don't care. Sometimes it's to tip them in and sometimes it's to rattle them because they're watching what they're going to do.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[John Barnes]

Please stop doing this. You're going out of your way to create a problem.


First option is to not give them a heads up - otherwise suspects make themselves scarce and it gives them time to concoct stories and alibis. Police also like monitoring body language when first confronted. If all else fails locating someone, they get on the phone.

This is real life not ncis on tv lol . Cops ring to make a time to talk to you .


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[John Barnes]

No, I'm not. If you have transcripts that prove your point, put them up here or gonski.



There are a thousand reasons why the cops might ring someone first, sometimes it's operational, sometimes it's because they're simply lazy and/or they want to casually invite the suspect in to the police station to throw them into a formal interview set up without an arrest and sometimes it's yes, because they think they're wasting their time and they don't care. Sometimes it's to tip them in and sometimes it's to rattle them because they're watching what they're going to do.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I will point out the cops didn’t believe b


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[JezMez]

No, I'm not. If you have transcripts that prove your point, put them up here or gonski.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

THE QUEEN v. BEVAN SPENCER VON EINEM File No. 208 of 1990 Judgment No. 2741 Number of pages - 27 Admissibility of Evidence [1991] SASC 2741 (6 March 1991)

But Charlie says this part of the evidence is missing from the transcript.
Both Bob O'Brien and the e-book have access to transcripts and case files. I would suggest a meeting that would be the motive for Neil's murder would not be missed, nor not spoken of.

I'll leave you to do the maths.

 

[JezMez]

This is real life not ncis on tv lol . Cops ring to make a time to talk to you .

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

For a traffic accident.