Crime Junkie - UPDATE: Beaumont Children

Episode Date: February 20, 2025

Jane, Arnna, and Grant Beaumont disappeared nearly 60 years ago without a trace. On February 22, 2025, a third and final dig at a location of interest might give answers to a family who’s been waiting for over half a century. Source materials for this episode cannot be listed here due to character limitations. For a full list of sources, please visit: crimejunkiepodcast.com/missing-beaumont-children/Did you know you can listen to this episode ad-free? Join the Fan Club! Visit crimejunkie.app/library/ to view the current membership options and policies.The Crime Junkie Merch Store is NOW OPEN! Shop the exclusive Life Rule #10 Tour collection before it’s gone for good! Don’t miss your chance - visit the store now! Don’t miss out on all things Crime Junkie!Instagram: @crimejunkiepodcast | @audiochuckTwitter: @CrimeJunkiePod | @audiochuckTikTok: @crimejunkiepodcastFacebook: /CrimeJunkiePodcast | /audiochuckllcCrime Junkie is hosted by Ashley Flowers and Brit Prawat. Instagram: @ashleyflowers | @britprawatTwitter: @Ash_Flowers | @britprawatTikTok: @ashleyflowerscrimejunkieFacebook: /AshleyFlowers.AF Text Ashley at 317-733-7485 to talk all things true crime, get behind the scenes updates, and more!

Hi, Crime Junkies. I'm Ashley Flowers. And I'm Britt. And I've got news. I want to try to bring you guys more case updates when they happen. So we're going to try something new here. Yep. Tell us if you like it, if you want more. Yes. So five years ago, when we were just baby podcasters, we covered the 1966 disappearance of the Beaumont children.

And almost 60 years later, something is happening. But the thing is, you need to know the story to understand the importanceumont children. And almost 60 years later, something is happening. But the thing is, you need to know the story to understand the importance of this update. So if you need a refresher, keep listening to our OG episode on the Beaumont children. But let's take a moment to appreciate how far we've come as podcasters. Please be nice, like truly be kind.

But listen, we got to where we are for a reason. The story is still a good one. So please enjoy this blast from the past. And at the end, we're going to jump back in and tell you the big news that is happening this week. Hi Crime Junkies. I'm your host, Ashley Flowers. And I'm Brett.

And since yesterday was Australia Day for our wonderful listeners Down Under. Oh, let's not do that. I think we did that in the fan club once where we tried to do Australian accents. It's really bad, you guys. But anyways, we wanted to celebrate by telling you about one of the most infamous and enduring mysteries in Australian history. But before we tell you our story though, we want to send our thoughts to everyone in Australia during this horrific brushfire season.

The Australian Red Cross is on the front lines of disaster relief, and we encourage everyone to donate and support their efforts, like we are doing. You can find a link on our website, or you can go to redcross.org.au. Now, today's story is one of those cases that never really lets go of a country's national imagination kind of like John Benet-Ramsey for us here in the US or Madeline McCann for

those in the UK. In 1966, three young children left their home to go swimming at the beach on Australia Day and were never seen again. Their disappearance changed Australian life forever and thrust caution into the forefront of parents' minds all over the country. The End January 26, 1966 is a scorching hot day in Adelaide. Despite the weather, the city is brimming with excitement because not only is it Australia Day with this long weekend coming up, but there's also an upcoming Ashes Cricket Test Match, so the city is teaming with sports fans from all across the country. The South Australian state capital, Adelaide, is this coastal city

on the St. Vincent Gulf, and since the temperature is due to get up to 40 degrees Celsius, which is like 104 degrees Fahrenheit, the local beaches are packed on this day. Everybody has the same idea to beat the heat by heading to the ocean, maybe stopping at one of the local restaurants to pick up some lunch, doing just like the usual stuff to enjoy the day without just hiding inside until the sun goes down. All in all, it is a good, peaceful Wednesday in the city. But then, sometime between 5 and 6 p.m. That evening everything changes a

Middle-aged married couple comes into the station Grant usually known as Jim and Nancy Beaumont are worried sick because there are three young children Left home to go to Glenelg Beach that morning a little bit before 10 o'clock and they never came back Now they were expected to be home first around like noon But they never showed. At first, their mom, Nancy, just kind of assumed that maybe they lost track of time, maybe they missed the first bus and they're going to be on the second, so she waits for the next bus to come, but they're not on the two o'clock bus either. The parents try searching on their

own at first, but after hours with no sign of the kids, Jim and Nancy knew that they had to go straight to police. According to Alan Whitaker and Stuart Mullin's book called Searching for the Beaumont Children and their follow-up The Satin Man, the police spring into action right away. When they get a description from their parents, they learn that Jane is the oldest at nine years old and she's super responsible and excellent caretaker for her younger siblings. There's seven-year-old Arna and four-year-old Grant.

And they learn that she left the house in a pink bathing suit with a little white purse to keep her money in. Now, Jane is also the swimmer of the three, so Jim and Nancy were confident that she would keep an eye on Arna and Grant and make sure that they didn't go too far out into the surf. At the very start of this investigation, police don't want to believe the worst. The initial thought is that maybe the kids lost track of time, kind of like what their

mom thought. And when they realized actually how late that they were, maybe that made them freak out more and things kind of escalated. Right. Maybe they're hiding out somewhere because maybe their parents are angry with them because they didn't come home on time. Right. That's what they're thinking. So with that in mind, police actually start their search at the Beaumont's home in hope that the

little ones like kind of snuck back in to hide somewhere and wait for mom and dad and wait for them to not be so upset. Now to be clear, at first investigators aren't suspicious of Jim or Nancy. They just want to cover all their bases to see if this can be resolved quickly. But unfortunately, it can't, since a long and thorough search of the house doesn't turn up any sign of the children. And by now, it's getting dark outside, and Jim and Nancy keep reiterating to police that their kids would not willingly be outside after dark. So investigators start mobilizing more local resources to widen the search.

In order to do that, the Adelaide police send five boats from the Sea and Rescue Squadron out to the St. Vincent Gulf to shine their bright lights across the dark waters in hopes of spotting something. But over and over again, their light just flashes on still dark water. They come up with nothing. With more people getting involved in all this activity, the local media now starts noticing what's going on. They're thinking like, hey, something is happening. And a bulletin goes out at about 10

o'clock that evening. Now, mind you, this is like a full 12 hours since the kids got on that bus that morning. And they push this bulletin out to the evening, you know, TV, radio, asking anyone if they've seen the missing kids. While the news of the missing children is being broadcast, police are still hard at work at Glenelg. The Sydney Morning Herald reported in 1966 that police even had aqualung divers go into the Glenelg boat marina to search underwater, but the water was like super murky and there

was like almost little to no visibility. But despite the setbacks, they continue all through the night on land and sea, even checking storm drains that flush out into the ocean. And they also even have people traversing up and down the rocky coastline looking for cave-ins and landslides anywhere that the kids could possibly be. At this point, their thinking is starting to change. They no longer think the kids are hiding, but now they start to wonder if maybe the kids got into some kind of accident.

You know, with kid logic, when you're doing something, you're going on a strange adventure, so you go into a cave or someone will bury you in sand and it seems like a good idea. Everything seems like a good idea. Yeah. So they're thinking like if Jane, Arna and Grant are maybe stuck somewhere and they can't get out, like time is of the essence. Plus Arna and Grant aren't great swimmers. And so they're thinking, gosh, they could have gotten carried out. Maybe Jane went, she was a strong swimmer to try and like rescue them, but she failed and they like have all the more reason to find them quickly. I mean not to go like too dark too fast, but was kidnapping an option at this point? Like or are police really just trying to find them in some sort of freak accident on the beach?

Yeah, so according to the book, The Satin Man, police start off the investigation with three main scenarios in mind about what could have happened. Either A. the kids drowned, B. they ran away, or C. that they've been kidnapped. Now drowning gets ruled out pretty fast because the sea had been calm the day before when the kids disappeared and the beach had plenty of lifeguards who everyone assumed would have noticed if three children went in the water and were getting swept away. Plus, none of the Beaumont's belongings were found left on shore, which is what you would expect to see

if they had gone into the ocean and then never come out. So drowning gets ruled out pretty quickly, and so does the idea of the three kids just running away. Like, they're happy kids, there's nothing in their past behavior to suggest that they would leave home like that. So police have to quickly set that idea aside as well. And since the

kids aren't thought to have run away, and they aren't thought to have drowned, that leaves investigators with the most frightening prospect of all. That someone was able to take not one, but all three young children from a crowded area in broad daylight. Okay, but if someone snatched them, like someone had to have seen it. You said it was one of the busiest days on the beach, right? Yeah, I mean it was, yeah, super packed. Even if they didn't realize right away that it was a kidnapping, something would have been off.

These three kids just randomly go off with a stranger. Someone would have had to have witnessed something. There had to be witnesses. So yes, and this is where all of the media attention really comes in handy, because not only does that media attention lead to the biggest volunteer mobilization in Australian history, like Sarah Garcia reported for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 2018, but it also means that information starts flooding into police stations. Now while some of these so-called tips are hoaxes, some of them are from credible witnesses and coupled with what police know from Jim and Nancy, a picture of the kids last movements really starts to appear, including some

information about a person who may hold the key to the entire investigation. Numerous witnesses who were on or near Glenelg Beach on the day that the kids disappeared tell investigators about seeing the Beaumont children playing with an unidentified man. These statements and the South Australian's police incident report place the children and their mysterious companion at a place called Colley Reserve Park right near the beach before they disappeared. There are also people who just saw the children alone. So in that book, Searching for the Beaumont Children, it's said that the bus driver who picked them up remembered them getting

on the bus at about 10 o'clock. Now there's this guy named Tom who's the local postman and he remembered saying hello to little Grant who greeted him back and seemed totally happy and fine. And initially, Tom couldn't remember if he saw them in the morning or the afternoon, but police end up checking his shift schedule and like his records and determined that he had to have seen them in the morning based on when Tom was working. And they put that sighting at around 10 15,

right when he starts his shift. Then one of Jane's classmates reports seeing the siblings that morning at about 11.15. Now, all of those sightings so far are just of the kids. After this, though, other witnesses come forward who say they saw the children with this unidentified man. Now, there are three separate witnesses who saw them together. There is a man who was in town to watch the cricket match. There was a middle-aged woman. And then there was this 74-year-old woman. And together, they help police piece together

the activities of the kids later in the day. Now, as far as police can put together, it seems that the 74-year-old woman likely was the first to see the kids together with this man. She says that she saw them sometime between 11 and 1130 in the morning. And then all three of the witnesses give police a description of what this stranger looks like. According to this article I found called The Disappearance of the Beaumont Children, Murder and Misadventure, and it's on the Crime Travelers website, all three witnesses describe the man as being in his mid to late 30s, tall and tanned with a long, thin face and light brown hair that was neat and parted to one side.

But interestingly, the middle-aged woman tells police that she did more than just see the man. She actually spoke to him. Melbourne's The Age newspaper reported in early February of 66 that this man approached her at Glenelg Beach a little bit before noon and he was with the three kids. And he approached her telling her that their money had been stolen and asking her if she'd seen anyone rummaging through their things. Because she was sitting right near their stuff.

So if anything had happened, she would have likely seen it. Now she didn't see anything, she doesn't remember anything. They didn't talk anymore beyond this, but she was able to tell police that based on his accent, he was definitely Australian. They have the 74 year old woman actually sit down with a sketch artist from a local newspaper and describe the man, resulting in this portrait

of a strange man that police are now desperate to locate. And here, Brett, I am actually going to send you a picture of the sketch that they came up with. Okay. So it means a pretty normal looking guy. He's got kind of a longish face, a big forehead. I guess my biggest question is if they saw him well enough to describe him for this sketch, what else did the witness pick up on? How was he acting with the kids? What was his demeanor? How were the kids with him? Stuff like

that. So it's interesting. So according to the Age newspaper, people described seeing this man, quote, frolicking with the kids before noon, which sounds to me like he was kind of like playing with them. Everyone was having a good time. Not, you know, I think it's completely different from what we might imagine of him just shoving them in a car or forcibly taking them. What we have from this lady too about him coming up and asking about the money, it sounds like the kids were interacting with him and probably felt safe, like they could trust him.

Right. Now, what's super interesting is that since they appear to be enjoying themselves with this stranger, I find it strange that the last credible sighting of the children actually doesn't include him. So there was a staff member at a bakery in Glenelg, and this bakery was in very easy walking distance from both the beach and the Collie Reserve. And this person tells police that the three kids came in to buy themselves some lunch around midday.

And this in itself isn't unusual since Jane, Arna, and Grant had been to this very shop before, and they were recognized by the staff. What is weird is how they bought their food because the shopkeeper tells police that the three kids paid with a one pound note. Okay, what's so special about that? Well, a one pound note was a lot of money back in 66, especially for young kids to have.

But not only that, police knew from Nancy that she only gave Jane eight shillings and six pence to cover their lunches and bus fare. All of that was in coins. So the police are thinking maybe the strange man gave them this one pound note Exactly plus remember how this man said that their money had just been stolen like police have to consider What if that was a lie? What if he stole Jane's money and then gave her this money? Okay, but why would he steal less money and give them more back? but why would he steal less money and give them more back?

So possibly to earn their confidence. Like this is a widely used tactic for manipulators, like getting a victim to rely on you for something or making them feel like you helped them and that maybe they owe you or it puts them at ease. So learning about the sighting of this man and even the last sighting without him, but this one pound note is making police more sure than ever that the children have been kidnapped, and likely the three kids went away with this man willingly, unknowing

of his true intentions. So once they have this sketch from that woman, this goes out to all of the newspapers all over Australia, while police in Adelaide search for their records of sex offenders in the area to see if maybe any of them match witness descriptions. But here's the thing, of all of the sex offenders in the area, and listen, there's always more than you expect.

I would encourage people to just take a look at their own neighborhood. Like I think you would be surprised. But of all of the sex offenders listed in the area, they don't come up with anyone that's a good match or makes for a good lead. Now in the meantime, while all this is going on, the searches are still going on as well. They haven't given up on finding the kids, but it's getting harder to hold out hope because every search is turning up nothing.

Days turn into weeks, weeks into months, and in September, eight months after the Beaumont children went missing, a police officer in town, and this is about like 200 miles east of Adelaide, overhears an interesting conversation on his phone line. Now this town is a really small one located like right between Adelaide and Melbourne. So what's happening is this local officer is basically trying to call the head office of Melbourne when according to the book, searching for the Beaumont children, he hears a woman mentioned bringing the Beaumont kids back from

Hobart on the island of Tasmania. Wait, if he's trying to make a call out, I guess I don't understand how he's overhearing this conversation. So, from what I understand, he's able to hear because somehow some wires got crossed. And I actually had to look up what this means for myself, and it kind of goes back to really old phone technology. So I looked up on astrotelicoms about crossed wires, and apparently it's like a pretty

common problem in the old Australian phone systems infrastructure so basically if you got online and you had a crossed wire you could hear part of someone else's conversation so the fact that he heard this is totally legit but here's the problem the officer who hears this thinks that it's a hoax and everyone he talks to the police in Adelaide the police in Melbourne like they all think it's a hoax too. Except for one man, Detective Sergeant Stan Swain, and he's with the South Australian police in Adelaide. He is so convinced that the call is real that he actually calls Jim and Nancy to tell them that he believes that their children are still alive.

Now while he's informing the family of what he believed to be true, other members of the South Australian police were tracking down the woman who actually made the call, you know, ahead of telling the family member, and they learned the real truth, that the officer who heard the call only heard parts of the conversation. And I guess once they heard the whole thing in context, they come to believe that there is no real connection to the kids. They don't even think it was a hoax, just some crossed wires and honestly like a painful coincidence that gave the Beaumonts false hope.

So that incident obviously was a little bit embarrassing having raised the family's hope, but as if that's not embarrassing enough, just two months later in November, police find themselves up against a Dutch psychic who is just adamant that he knows where the kids are buried. Now, this man flies all the way to Adelaide from the Netherlands 10 months after the Beaumont kids disappeared, and it gets a whirlwind of media attention. This guy's basically made a name for himself by claiming to be able to use his powers to solve missing person cases back in Europe. And while he had some luck and some maybe pretty basic guesswork, according to the satin

man, I guess in some cases he also got access to some confidential police files that I'm sure helped his quote powers along. So basically he's already famous when he rolls in. And so the local papers make a huge deal of his coming down. Word gets out to the point that there's a crowd of Adelaide citizens at the airport waiting when he arrives, hoping that after almost a year, he's going to be the one to like swoop in, solve the case and finally give the family answers. Now, to be super clear, police didn't pay him to come in.

His trip was funded by a wealthy Adelaide citizen who actually paid all of his travel expenses. So, he gets to Australia and claims that the Beaumonts are buried in a warehouse in Purring a park. So, this is a spot that he's seen in his visions or whatever, and it's where he says they need to look in order to find the kids. Now, keep in mind, he has no actual evidence to back this up So ultimately police won't go and excavate anything based on his like visions or gut instincts or whatever alone

According to the crime travelers article which we talked about before the psychic claimed that the kids weren't murdered actually He says that they died as a result of some kind of accident and that this mystery man described by witnesses had nothing to do with their disappearance. And the police as I'm sure you can imagine are initially pretty skeptical. Right. And so he can't get them to dig right away and this is my favorite part. He basically only stays in Australia for three days before telling the public, like, yeah, I'm done. I'm going back to Europe.

I kind of washed his hands of it. They won't do what I say, so peace out. Now, despite him leaving, you would kind of think police are like, no, we're not going to do this. He leaves. Everyone drops it. But because it got so much media attention and because the authorities were refusing to excavate where this psychic said,

the locals in Adelaide actually raise money to finance the dig themselves. Like they were crowdfunding back in like 67. Oh my God. And do you know what this kind of reminds me a little bit of? It kind of reminds me of the most recent development in the Maura Murray case. Like remember there was like that house that house that everyone was like, you have to look, you have to look, and police are like, no, like, we're pretty sure nothing's there. Like we've been through this. And then they finally did. Because there was so much like public attention that I think they were finally like, okay,

we're going to do this. But then after we do this, can we just do our jobs and can everyone calm down? Right. Plus, it didn't help that the place that he wanted them to dig up was this warehouse. And someone owned it. It's not like they were digging in the middle of the field. So there was a lot of stuff that police had to try and work around. Okay, but how did the public work around it?

I can't imagine that they could just show up and be like, we're going to dig here. Oh, you're absolutely right. The owners are not happy about it, but after four months of media attention and basically demands from the public, they kind of finally just bow to the pressure and agree. Like, okay, you can dig up this one specific area where the psychic said the kids are buried. But what the warehouse owners say is police have to be there to make sure that everything is in order.

And so what happens is a few months later after the psychic goes back to Europe with police present, they actually start a dig on March 1st of 1967, 14 months after Jane Arna and Grant had gone missing. Now the dig takes nine days, but when it concludes, no evidence whatsoever is found. And the case goes back to being cold again. Now, by this time, over a year has passed since the children disappeared, so police attention has to shift to other cases. There are new cases popping up every single day, and this gets farther and farther from

their minds. And though the public never forgets the case, it gets farther and farther from their minds. And though the public never forgets the case, it gets further and further from the forefront of the public's mind as well. That is until Jim and Nancy receive a mysterious letter. In mid-February of 1968, this is now two years since the kids went missing, a letter written in very childlike style arrives at the Beaumont's home. It's postmarked from the Melbourne suburb of Dandenong, over 400 miles east of Adelaide, and it claims to be from Jane. And this is what it says as published in the Satin Man book. Brett, I'm actually going to have you read this. Dear Mom and Dad, We are safe.

There's no need to worry about us. Oh, we really missed you in the past two years. At the beach on that day, we were walking to the bus stop when a man in a car stopped us and asked us if we wanted a ride. I said that we did, and that is how it all started. The man would not let us write before. He is letting us write tonight because he saw the story in the Herald tonight and felt sorry for you both.

He watched us a lot for about six weeks and then he did not watch us so much. Arna and I talk about you often, but Grant does not remember you at all after more than two years. We have been well fed all the time. I as well as Arna and Grant, hope that you are both well." The man said to me just now that he will willingly let us go if you come over to Victoria to get us as long as you do not call the police. He said that if you do, the deal is off. You have to pick us up in front of the Dandenong Post Office at 10 minutes to 9 o'clock next Monday, the 26th of February.

You, Dad, have to wear a dark coat and white pants so the man will know you. The man told me to tell you that the police must not know at all. He said that if you do tell them, you may as well not come, so please do not tell them. The Dandenong Post Office is in Victoria in case you did not know. Please do not tell the police. The man did not mean to harm us. We still love you both. Love, Jane, Arna, and Grant." This is Jane who is writing. Now, Jim does what any sensible parent would do, and he hands the letter immediately over to investigators. And he does this because right away, there are some inconsistencies that stand out to police. Like, Britt, I don't know if you noticed, but the letter writer actually misspells Arna's name. Her name is actually spelled A-R-N-N-A.

And the letter writer only spelled it with one N. And apparently, the handwriting doesn't match any of Jane's school papers. Because of these pretty important inconsistencies, police are confident that this is another mean-spirited hoax designed to toy with grieving parents. But Detective Sergeant Stan Swain, the same guy who was so sure that the crossed wires call was a clue, is totally convinced that the letter is real. And he's so sure of it that he manages to persuade Jim and Nancy to make a secret trip to Dandenong. Okay, but this guy has been kind of embarrassed before in front of his colleagues by believing

something that ended up being nothing. What makes him think this one is like a for-sure real deal? So here's the thing. Stan tells the Beaumonts that he himself compared the handwriting in the letter to the samples in Jane's school books, and he decided that it was a match, which feels like maybe he's going a bit rogue because the department already said that they weren't a match and that these were a fake.

And according to searching for the Beaumont children, Stan's boss told him, like, dude, you've got to let this go, but he just couldn't. So going over his superior's heads and getting Jim and Nancy's hopes up once again is bad enough. But it just boggles my mind that this guy is willing to do it a second time when it seems just as unlikely to pan out into something real. Like to me, that's just borderline cruel. But cruel or not, a desperate Jim guided by Stan follows the letter's instructions

exactly. He gets the right clothes, stands outside the Dandenong post office while Stan keeps watch, and a phone call actually comes into the post office saying that, quote, the man has been delayed, but he'll be there soon. Wait, is this actually legit? Well, it kind of seems that way, right? So they wait and wait and wait and day fades into evening and neither the children nor this mystery man ever show up. Now the next day, the same thing happens. Jim stays in front of the post office while Stan does surveillance, eager for any sign of the children or their abductor. And this goes on for three days.

Then the media gets their hands on the story because, get this, Stan actually booked a hotel room under his real name and reporters find out that he's there with Jim and Nancy. So the whole thing blows up in the press. The operation is essentially busted. And because of all this attention to this lead in the press. The operation is essentially busted. And because of all this attention to this lead in the press, it actually results in more letters from the same town arriving at the Beaumont's home back in Adelaide. Someone claiming to be, quote, the man actually writes to Jim and Nancy himself this time, taunting them for

involving police and even blaming them for not being able to get their children back. But is this one real? I mean, the general belief is that this is yet another hoax. Even the call? Even the call. So does the Stan guy let go of it now? Well, so in that book, Searching for the Beaumont Children, it actually kind of talks about this. By the time all of this goes down in Dandenong in 68, Stan is obsessed with the case.

And he almost views this as just a little setback instead of the disaster that it really is. Like his ability to separate himself from the investigation is just totally gone. And unfortunately, Jim and Nancy who suffer the most because of it. Right. He keeps getting their hopes up. Right. And treating this obvious red herring as a credible lead effectively ends Stan's career in law enforcement. So he's kind of done. The Beaumonts return to their hometown.

They kind of swear off talking to the media once and for all. And once again, the case goes cold. Now, five years go by with no developments, no new leads, until August 25th of 1973, when something terrible and all too familiar happens. Two young children go missing in an eerily similar fashion to the Beaumonts. Now, it's two young girls, 11-year-old Joanne Radcliffe and 4-year-old Kirstie Gordon. They go missing from a highly public location, again, in broad daylight. They're at the Adelaide Oval Stadium to watch an Australian Rules football match with their families.

Now, Joanne is there with her parents, Les and Kathleen, and their family friends, Frank, while Kirstie is there with her grandmother, Rita. Since Rita knows Joanne's parents, she lets Joanne take Kirsty to the bathroom around 3.50 p.m. during the match's third quarter. She expects that the two girls are gonna come right back, except after about 15 minutes, there's still no sign of them. So Les and Kathleen start searching around the stadium,

but they're unable to find any trace of either Kirsty or Joanne. So they go to the Oval's head office and ask for basically an announcement to be made about the missing children, but since play is in progress, the announcement isn't made until after the quarter ends, which costs investigators and the family a lot of valuable time. Oh my gosh, forget about the game. There are two missing kids.

Well, yet you'd think the office staff basically kind of rationalized it by saying, look, if we made this announcement while the game's going on, no one's really going to hear it. No one's going to pay attention. There's really no point, which maybe, but can we at least try? It's like my feeling. Like as a parent, I wouldn't care. Like, let's do it now. Let's do it later.

I want you to keep doing it until you find my kid. But anyway, so police get involved and they start their search efforts, and right away similarities between Joanne and Kirsty's disappearance and the Beaumont children's disappearance start to appear. Like, think about it. Both of these abductions happen in very public locations. With the Beaumonts, you have a crowded beach and a reserve, and now you have a packed stadium with over 12,000 people when Kirstie and Joanne vanish.

Also, just like in the case of the missing Beaumont kids, witnesses in this new case put the two girls in the company of an unidentified man. One of Oval's employees, this guy named Ken, tells police that he saw a man with the two girls, two girls who matched the girls description trying to lure some kittens out from underneath a car that was parked in one of the equipment sheds on the grounds near the stadium and Ken didn't think this was weird at the time because I guess a lot of stray cats kind of hung out and in around or near The stadium and kids were always wanting to play with them

But he describes this man as being about five foot, eight inches tall, middle-aged, and said he was wearing this kind of distinctive gray checkered sport jacket with brown pants and a brown hat. They find another witness as well. This time it was a teenage boy who corroborates Ken's accounts, and they don't get to talk to this guy till like a week later. The Canberra Times reported back on August 31st of 73 that the teenager witnessed a man forcibly maneuvering the two girls toward one of the exits and into the public parking lot. And the teenager said that the man was actually carrying Kirstie under one arm and dragging

a struggling Joanne away with the other. And his description of the man matched Ken's down to the man's gray coat and brown hat. So armed with these two matching descriptions, a local Adelaide art teacher actually paints a portrait of the unidentified man. And when the depiction is shown to the public, it shocks everyone. When the depiction is shown to the public, it shocks everyone. The portrait of the unidentified man from the Adelaide Oval Disappearances resembles the sketch of the stranger who was last seen with Jane Arna and Grant Beaumont.

And here, I want you to check this out for yourself, Brett. This is the same guy. This is exactly the same guy. I mean, the long face. It's the same guy with the hat on. This is the same guy. This is exactly the same guy. I mean, the long face. It's the same guy with the hat on. That's the only difference. Yeah, the long face, the forehead. I mean, granted, you can't see his hair because of the hat,

but everything else is exactly the same. Yeah. Like to me, the only difference is, you know, the guy at the Oval Stadium, we call him Oval Guy, he's described as around 5'8", and Beaumont Guy is described as over six feet tall. But that height discrepancy is kind of negligible in my mind. Like, witnesses can be off and depending on their stature, I think that's something that can easily be misjudged.

Oh, definitely. We're 5'2". Everybody's tall to me. Everyone's so tall. But more than anything, they consider the cases as possibly connected because the MO is so similar. Like, the victims are similar, both the crimes are so brazen, and yet police have to look at the odds of having a dangerously skilled serial abductor in their midst now. Whoever snatched Joanne and Kirstie seems to be just as good at hiding them as whoever took Jane, Arna, and Grant. Again, days turn into weeks and months with no break in the case and no clue about what might have happened to them.

And just like in the Beaumont case, Joanne and Kirstie's case goes cold. Years go by with no definitive links outside of basically conspiracy theories. But in 1990, 17 years after the Adelaide Oval Disappearances, and this is now 24 years after the Beaumonts went missing, the Adelaide media learns that the South Australian police are diving in this place called Maipong Reservoir, which is 34 miles south of Adelaide. Now ordinarily, this could easily be brushed off as like a training exercise or, you know, just something police won't confirm or deny, whatever.

But their dive just so happened to take place after a witness in another murder case testifies that the Beaumonts are buried in that reservoir. Wait, go back. What other murder case? So it's actually multiple murder cases. So when this is going on, there are actually some really horrific killings in and around Adelaide in the late 70s and early 80s. And they were known as the family murders. And I'm only going to touch on them briefly here, but we're actually going to do like a more in-depth audio extra over in our fan club. So if you're

interested, you can go there on our website website if you're already in the fan club you can check that out after the episode but let me tell you these murders are pretty gruesome from 1979 to 1983 five young men named Alan, Neil, Mark, Peter and Richard go missing and are later found dead now four of the five were drugged and sexually tortured and autopsies determined that they all died from blood loss stemming from severe anal injuries caused by insertion of a blunt object. Neil, Mark, and Peter's bodies are found in pieces, and Mark had been cut from his navel to his pubic bone and then re-sewn up with parts of his small intestine missing.

Do we know how the fifth person died? Well, not really. So Peter went missing during the same time period as the others, but his body was accidentally burned by a farmer who obviously had no idea there was a corpse on his property and he was doing some like controlled burns. So it's not known for sure how he died. All that was found was his skeleton cut into pieces like Neil and Mark. And the connection is on how he'd been mutilated after he died. All that was found was his skeleton cut into pieces like Neil and Mark. And the connection is on how he'd been mutilated after he died.

Now despite the connections and that they all seem super similar, only one of these murders is ever officially solved. Several of the victims were drugged with the same two prescription sedatives. So police use pharmacy records to kind of like narrow down their suspect list and it pays off when they find this Adelaide man named Bevin. Police get a warrant for his house where according to the book searching for the Beaumont children, they find both drugs as well as hair and fibers linking him to Richard who was the fifth victim. Now Bevin is charged and convicted for Richard's death in 1984 and sentenced to life in prison. Then five years later in 1989,

he's charged with killing Alan and Mark. This story is bananas, but I'm getting super lost. What's the connection to the Beaumonts again? So in Bevan's second trial is where this mysterious witness who we only know as Mr. B due to confidentiality testifies that Bevan was the one that snatched the Beaumont children. And he also says that he's the one that took Kirstie and Joanne from the Adelaide Oval Stadium as well. And it's because of his testimony that he's the one that says that

the kids are buried at the reservoir. And so the police are doing this dig, then these records come out, and the public is kind of putting this together. And so now all of a sudden, Bevin's name is linked to the Beaumont kids. And as you can imagine, the media goes nuts. This is not one, not two, but three of the most infamous crimes in South Australia history tied possibly together and potentially committed by the same person who's already in jail and off the streets. It seems like it could be a wonderful success story, like almost too good to be true.

And realistically, it might be. Especially since in the book, Searching for the Beaumont Children, Mr. B's credibility as a witness is seriously shaky, and they basically bring that up in court as well. He admits to participating in one of the rapes, and he only agreed to testify after being granted full immunity and he insists that he deserves the full financial reward for quote-unquote solving the crime which okay makes no sense to me if you're also participated in right raping some of the

victims. Now I couldn't find if he actually got the award but I mean since none of his testimony about the Beaumonts or Adelaide Oval was ever proven to be remotely true, I would be shocked if he actually got anything. Now, the additional murder charges that Bevan went to court for are eventually dropped, and during the trial, he's not convicted. But thankfully, he is still in jail for killing Richard. And in my opinion, and this is just my opinion, I don't think he's the one responsible for the Beaumonts. For the family murders, absolutely, but the Beaumonts and the Adelaide Oval kidnappings don't match the family pattern to me at all.

Like four of the five missing children that we're talking about are girls, and the oldest girl that we're talking about is 11, whereas in the family victims, those victims are boys that range from 14 to 25. Right. The victim profiles don't match at all. Yeah.

And I was doing some reading in the California Department of Justice website kind of about sexual predators. And while some do exhibit more variety in their victims, like different ages or genders, other keep like a specific preference. And that seems to be what Bevin does. And since the other killings that he did the family murders are so consistent I don't really see him Deviating plus he would have been in his early 20s at the time the kids went missing in 66

Which is really too young to match the descriptions of the man seen at the beach But again, it's worth mentioning because you would do any research on this case. Like his name is going to come up Okay, and if he was responsible like even the way the boys' bodies were found but the kids weren't, doesn't really add up. Exactly, but there's a lot that doesn't add up to me. And Bevin's never been charged with anything related to the Beaumonts or the Adelaide Oval Disappearances. So, after the trial in 1990, the Beaumont case goes cold yet again.

And in 1992, the Dandenong letters are proven once and for all to be a fake when fingerprint analysis directs police to a man who had been a teenager back in the late 60s. And listen, he's never been named publicly, but according to authorities, he's actually admitted to writing all of the letters as a hoax. Now, time keeps passing, and while new theories often connect new suspects to the Beaumont's case, like including some other pretty notorious child killers across Australia, none of them are ever proven.

Like, in 1998, eight years after that whole, like, reservoir dig, there was this 86-year-old man named Arthur who was arrested for the unsolved 1970 rape and murder of a five year old and seven year old pair of sisters. Now he's charged with a whole host of offenses for sexually assaulting a young woman and other girls and in his own family. The reason he even got tied to it initially was that Andrew Ruhl actually reported for Sun Herald in 2001 that a witness saw Arthur on TV after his arrest and he

placed him at Adelaide Oval with the two girls matching Joanne and Kirsty's description and then they're thinking well whoever took those girls are thought to have taken the Beaumonts and that's kind of where that connection is made. But eventually police completely clear him of any suspicion in the Beaumont and the Adelaide Oval cases and he's like totally ruled out by like 2001. Now five years later in 2007, the Herald's son reported that convicted child murderer Derek Percy had been questioned by police like back in 2005 in relation to the Beaumonts. And although he's thought to be responsible for at least eight other child's deaths, South

Australian police told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 2014 that he was definitely not a significant person of interest for the Beaumonts. Like, he was already in prison when Joanne and Kirstie were snatched up. So if the theory of, you know, the two cases being connected was real, like, he couldn't have done both. And he doesn't really match the description from the beach. Now, despite these possibilities and, you know and the case getting renewed over and over, no real credible links ever emerge.

And eventually public fascination dims, though it never fully dies. And eventually a book is published a full 40 years after Jane, Arna, and Grant disappeared. And this is when writer Alan Whitaker and his research partner Stuart Mullins published the book, Searching for the Beaumont Children, which is considered one of the most definitive

and comprehensive accounts of this mystery. And it's a book that we've referenced a couple of times throughout this episode, I highly recommend it. But when they published this book, it's 2006 now mind you, and despite the 40 yearyear lapse in time, everyone was about to be shocked to find out that there was still secrets out there waiting to be uncovered and people who held those secrets were finally ready to talk. Because that's when Alan and Stuart get a phone call that changes

everything that they and the police thought that they knew about this case. The person who called Allen and Stewart is a woman named Angela, who believes that her former father-in-law had something to do with the Beaumont children's disappearance. with the Beaumont children's disappearance. She says that her ex-husband, a man named Hayden, confided that he saw his father with the Beaumonts on the day that they disappeared. At first, Allen doesn't take Angela too seriously. He's gotten calls like this before, and he's had his fair share of run-ins with wannabe sleuths from all walks of life.

But as the conversation continues, Alan realizes that not only is Angela's story fascinating, it's also really believable. So he and Stewart do some investigation basically into Angela and her background. Basically, they're trying to collect references to see if she can be considered trustworthy. Yeah, like to make sure that she's legit. Yeah. And all of her references come back glowing. So Stuart reaches out and he arranges a meeting. And this one meeting turns into a years long investigation

by authors, experts, private investigators, retired detectives, and others, with dozens of interviews all around Australia in their meticulous hunt for the truth. And their findings become another book which they titled The Satin Man, which we've also referenced throughout this episode. Yeah. Now, the title of the book refers to a brand new suspect, The Satin Man.

And The Satin Man is Angela's ex-father-in-law. Now, the authors in their book use pseudonyms for their subjects, but police and numerous news outlets like the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the New Daily, and CNN have all confirmed the satin man's true identity. So who is it? His name was Harry Phipps, and he actually died back in 2004 without ever being on police's radar. Now he was never investigated in his lifetime for any connection to the Beaumont children, but according to those who knew him best, the Harry seen in private was a far different

man from the one presented to the public. The first and best known sign of Harry's double life is right there in the book's title, his obsession with satin. Harry was infamous within his family and their inner circle for having a satin fetish. Not a healthy fetish or interest, but one that was so consuming that literally no one was allowed to even wear satin near him because just the sight and sound of the fabric caused an instant uncontrollable arousal. And according to the book, Harry made his own satin pajamas and dresses for sexual gratification and he kept them in a private room in the house that the rest

of the family was forbidden from entering. Oh, I'm sorry, wait, what? Satin man. We have heard some dark stories about people who have dark twisted fantasies and turn-ons, but honestly, I did not see this one coming. It's weird, right? What?

Satin? Satin. And like, he can't see it, he can't hear it rustle. Can't be around it. He can't go to weddings, obviously. Like, I'm so floored by this entire thing. But as weird as it is, because it is. Totally. It doesn't make you a child abductor. Well, no, that's true. The obsession with Saturn doesn't, except according to Harry's son, Hayden, there's more, a lot more.

Harry was a violent alcoholic who loved firearms, and his son says that he kept guns all over the house. He also said that he had frequent outbursts against his immediate family and threatened them many times with his weapons. But it gets even worse beyond that. Hayden confided in Angela that he had been violently raped by his father multiple times a week for many years growing up. And the abuse only stopped when he got big enough to defend himself. And basically his dad's fetish of Saturnin kind of ended up haunting him because he said he was haunted by the swish of the satin fabric coming down the hallway.

So he, where his dad like couldn't be around it because it was too much, he was too aroused. Like I don't even think he could be around it later because it brought back so many awful traumatic memories. Right, it was too traumatic and triggering for him. Now obviously because Harry was never on anyone's radar, none of this was reported to the South Australian police at the time, and Harry was never charged with a crime. But by the time Harry comes into law enforcement's attention through Alan and Stuart, they've collected a whole laundry

list of circumstantial evidence that casts a ton of suspicion on him. Now, first, there's his status and his wealth. Harry was a very successful businessman, and he owned the Castelloy factory in Plimpton, which is like a suburb of the area. Now, being rich and well-connected and prominent in Adelaide social circles was a great cover in the 1960s.

Harry didn't fit anyone's idea of what they thought a pedophile was. And so police never even looked in his direction. Plus, remember how the Beaumont kids bought their lunch at that bakery with that one pound note? Yeah. So apparently, Harry was big on flaunting his wealth by handing out one pound notes to Hayden and his friends To like get them out of the house on Saturday so he could be alone with his satin It would be like our $10 bill for our parents. Yeah, so it's like here. Here's some money now

Go away And it's a habit that kind of continued into the next generation when Hayden's son Nick who apparently like lived with Harry for a time After his parents divorce like he would give him money as well. So although he's never publicly said that his grandfather did anything to him, Nick also alleges that sexually inappropriate experiences occurred with Harry as a child, though we don't know what that is explicitly.

Now, in the book, Nick tells Stuart about how Harry would rub up against him when they went swimming together and that's kind of like the most that we got. Okay, but didn't Hayden say that he saw the Beaumont kids with Harry? Yes, so this is like our biggest piece of circumstantial evidence. Australia's 7 News did a documentary about Harry in 2018 and they have audio of an interview that Hayden did with one of the sat man's investigators where he recalls seeing the Beaumont children on the day that they disappeared at his family house on

Australia Day 1966. Here I'll play it for you. Harry? Yeah. Did you hear what they were saying? No, it was too far away. How long had you seen him for? How long was he standing talking to Harry? Only long enough until he took him inside, well he took them inside and then after that I came out of the cubby house and went inside to see if there was going on and the front door was open so I just assumed I left at the front door. Did you hear any noises or any screaming or any shouting or nothing? Any gunshots? Yeah we heard some gunshots go off but Harry's always looking at gunshots, there's nothing. You think it was all with the kids in the house or was gunshots going on? No, not know that audio is a little rough to hear, so just to summarize, Hayden said that basically he saw three kids at his family's house on the day that the Beaumont kids disappear.

And one was drastically shorter than the other two, and that would match because Jane and Arna were kind of close in height-ish, and Grant was much shorter being the youngest. Then he says they were gone, the front door's wide open, and he hears later that day, or at some point that day, four gunshots. Okay, but that doesn't mean anything because he said he

heard gunshots all the time, right? Right. No, that's totally accurate. But later in that same interview, Hayden says that he saw Harry putting some big PVC bags in the trunk of his car, which again at the time didn't seem weird to him because it's how Harry would transport his satin dresses to other properties he owned. And he said, you know, to be very clear, like I never saw the children leave the house, which by the way, I haven't mentioned this yet. His house just happens to be within a very easy walking distance of Colley Reserve and Glenel Beach. Now, Hayden believes that the kids were buried at Harry's factory in what he calls a sandpit

Now Harry's factory again very close to everything we're talking about. It was just a short drive from the beach Does Harry have any resemblance to the sketch? Brett the resemblance is Uncanny I want to send you this gift so we took a video that Australia 7 News made and we made it into a GIF. And it is the sketch image and then it kind of morphs into Harry's picture. Hang on, hang on just a second.

You're going to, you're going to flip. Oh my God. That is right. Eerie. Like obviously he's older than the sketch, but he would be. Well, so here's the thing. So Harry was 48 in 1966, so it's a little bit older, but he kept himself in really good shape, and so he actually always looked much younger than he was.

Honestly, the eeriest thing for me is the hairline is... Yeah, he's got that like... Identical! High forehead, the hairline's spot on, he's got that like identical high forehead. The hairline's spot on. He does have kind of a long face. Yeah, and like the ear shapes, the nose shape. This is creepy.

We talked about it a lot where our sketches look really, really, really similar to Suspects, but honestly, I think this is the most like accurate one I've ever seen. Especially for, to me, the sketch has some prominent features like that forehead and the long face, but it also, it can be kind of vague, but my goodness, is it close? So I'll put this GIF on our Instagram. If you guys need to see it, you need to see it. A crime junkie podcast on Instagram. But despite all of the coincidences so far, the South Australia police declined

to get too involved when Allen and Stewart first get in touch. And this is back in like 2007. I mean, Harry's been dead for years at this point. So it's not like they can really arrest him. And they kind of are like, you know, we've got a ton of active cases to work on. So according to the Satin Man book, police say that they've already reviewed their evidence and talked to Harry's widow, which was his second wife, and found that she's a dead end. But Allen and Stewart decide to talk to her anyways. Now she was Harry's housekeeper before they got married and also took care of him after his health started to really decline.

So she had a front row seat into his weird fetishes. Now I wasn't able to verify her real name like I could with the other people, so I'll just call her Norma like they do in the book. So Stuart arranges a meeting with Norma who still lives at the same house in Glenelg and he goes to talk to her. Now right away away Norma does

two things that he finds odd. First she denies ever talking to the South Australia police and she brings up the Adelaide Oval disappearances completely unprovoked in relation to the Beaumonts. Now she's really friendly and welcoming though like happy to talk about Harry, happy to show Stuart all over the house. And she takes him in the basement as part of, like, their tour. And he catches sight of something really strange down there. A little white children's purse.

A purse very much like the one Jane Beaumont had the day that she vanished. So Stuart asked her about the purse without necessarily mentioning why he's interested or that it's connected to Jane. And Norma gets kind of upset and says that, oh, I just bought it at a thrift store, which is kind of weird for a woman her age. They kind of point out that she's got a lot of means, she is kind of weird for a woman her age. Like they kind of point out that she's got like a lot of means, she's pretty wealthy, like why is she buying a child's purse at a thrift store? So they tell police about this, but by the time police are alerted and they get to the house, it's not there. Exactly. Norma claims to have thrown the purse

away and it is never seen again. Okay, that's so shady though. Like if you just bought it or bought it in general and it was just hanging out of your house, like why all of a sudden would you just pitch it? I mean that's exactly what I thought too. But without the purse though, police are forced to return to seeing Norma as a dead end. Yet again, years pass. Alan and Stewart continue their research and once the Satin Man is published in 2013, even more people come forward. And once again, this kind of stirs like all of the public interest. It's completely renewed. And this time, all the renewed interest, like

they actually have a person of interest in their sites and they can maybe now use new technology to try and locate the children. And this new technology reveals something that may finally thaw this cold case. The South Australian police use ground-penetrating radar technology to search around Harry's old factory in Adelaide, the one that Hayden thought that he had buried the kids at. The search, according to Nigel Hunt for the Advertiser newspaper, turns up an anomaly in the soil, which can indicate that it's moved or that something or someone is buried there. So armed with that precise location, police now get involved

and they excavate a one square meter space in search of anything to definitively tie Harry to the Beaumont children. But like so many times before, this dig turns up nothing. I feel like the families of these kids have just seen so much like hope that's dashed and then hope that's dashed. Do they have any family members that are still around? Like their parents? Like this is 50 years out. Oh yeah.

So they're actually at the time that this happened, they're still alive and still in Adelaide. And in fact, that's actually one of the reasons that police really start looking into Harry as a suspect because they want wanna give Jim and Nancy some closure after all of these years of waiting for the truth. And truth is kind of an odd thing though, because even when it's hidden in the darkest family secrets,

like those of a man like Harry, it begins to come out eventually. So the allegations of his horrific sexual deviancy take on a new life in January 2018 when Australian TV premieres a new feature called Seven News Investigates the Beaumont Children What Really Happened. And a woman who chooses to remain anonymous identifies Harry as the man who brutally raped her in 1979 when she was just 14 years old. At the time, she was living with her family right near Harry's factory, and she kept quiet for the same reason as Hayden and so many other sexual assault victims. She was shameful

about what happened. She had a fear of him, maybe a fear that no one would believe her. But again, since Harry's dead and all of the physical evidence of sexual assault is long gone, there's nothing for police to investigate. Really her story just kind of corroborates that he wasn't a good guy. But this same seven news documentary does bring forward something that they can look into because a man named David, who was a teenager back in 66 when the Beaumonts disappeared, comes forward and tells the investigators or producers of this show that once he did a unique job for Harry. David says Harry hired him and his older brother Robin to dig a hole at the

Castillo grounds behind the factory during that long Australia Day weekend just days after Jane Arna and Grant Beaumont had vanished. Now according to David the hole was about seven yards long, about one yard wide, and about as deep as a young boy is tall. And he said it was located away from where that 2013 dig had taken place. Now, they didn't think anything weird of this job at the time because they had no reason to doubt Harry's, like, you know, again, he's this nice upstanding citizen,

he was paying them good money for their labor. Right. But David said it wasn't until decades later when he saw that Harry was on the news that he finally made the connection to the Beaumont children. So armed with this fresh information as well as a fresh location to search, police, archaeologists, and forensic experts returned to the old Castaway factory. Melinda McMillan wrote for New Castle Star in 2018 about the search team who had basically what they found was more soil anomalies right near where

David said he and Robin had dug back in 66, which makes sense because you know anomalies can show anything even digging and we know they dug there and right so it's not a lot upfront but it's at least enough to spark yet another excavation and before the dig police officially name Harry as a suspect in the disappearance of the Beaumont children. So on February 2, 2018, the second dig at Castelloy begins. But it's called off after less than 12 hours when investigators turn up nothing but some old animal bones. Okay, but that doesn't clear Harry. Like, they've only dug a couple of places on this property.

Yeah, exactly. And especially with this, like, mountain or at least a hill of circumstantial evidence, I think Harry is still a fantastic suspect and I don't think that they've removed him from their suspect list. I have no doubt that he absolutely was a sadistic pedophile during his lifetime and the scars that he left on his victims are clear. But who knows if we'll ever get a 100% clear answer about his possible involvement with the Beaumonts. Like, like police still believe that the Adelaide Oval Disappearances are connected to the Beaumont kids. So if Harry's responsible for one, it's totally possible that he's connected to the other.

But so much time has passed, memories fade, and many of the people who encountered him, including Hayden and Angela, are now deceased. Nancy Beaumont herself passed away just a little bit ago, on September 16th of 2019, in Adelaide at age 92. And her husband, the Beaumont's father, Jim, he's actually still alive, presumably still carrying the hope that however unlikely it might be after all this time, he might still learn the truth about what really happened to Jane, Arna, and Grant on that fateful day. Okay, so since the release of that episode in January of 2020, Jim Beaumont has passed away. He died in April of 2023 at the age of 97, never knowing what happened to

his three kids. But just because he's gone doesn't mean that Jane, Arna, or Grant don't have advocates. And when those advocates recently heard that the property where the person of interest Harry Phipps factory used to be was gonna get developed, they were quick to jump on this and tell the government, like, now is the time to do a renewed search of this area. Not only the best time, but possibly the last time they even can. Truly, like, whatever is gonna go in there

will probably make it hard, if not impossible, to ever search this area again. But it is a good news, bad news situation. Like, so bad news never again. Good news is that the demolition they're having to do to prepare to put this land up for sale also makes this like the best chance that they've ever gotten to search this place really thoroughly. So this is all happening quick like this search was just announced at the top of February 2025 and it is going to be happening February 22nd. And the dig is focused on three areas,

two of which were the subjects of the previous searches back in 2013 and then again in 2018. And the location of the third area isn't exactly clear at this point, but it's stemming from an investigation by this TV show called The Hunters that documents high profile Australian crimes.

I guess they have a docuseries about the Beaumonts coming out actually just the day after the dig on February 23rd. So keep an eye out for that. And I guess this third dig location is coming out of the investigation that they did. So it sounds like maybe they're unearthing something new. Now this dig importantly is also going to go deeper and wider than the previous digs have. According to an article

from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a member of parliament named Frank Pangelo is organizing the search. And he says that the ground is like one to two meters or like three to six and a half feet higher than it was back in 1966, just to like the amount of fill that's been added over the years. So wait, are the police involved in this or is this being run through like

another government agency? Like you said, he was from parliament. Neither. So it's being done by a private firm with a couple of forensic archaeologists and some university students. But I will say the police are aware of the search. They're gonna be supervising it just in case they do find anything. We don't like lose chain of custody. And in the event that they find something,

the search will then stop and then like the official investigators will pick it up. Will be transferred over to the police. Right. Now it's worth noting that the police don't think that this area that they're digging is supported by the evidence that they have. So I don't know that this area that they're digging is supported by the evidence that they have.

So I don't know what that means. I don't know what it is they have that they're saying like, no, definitely not. I'm going to be really curious to watch this new docu-series, figure out what has made them so confident in this area again, but particularly in this like new place there. Yeah. Especially since again, like this really is like the last opportunity for a search, especially of this size, like three different places. That's like an extensive search. And I'm gonna be all over the news outlets over the next few days, seeing if anything turns up.

Now, you guys, is the time to like set your Google alerts like I know Brett does. So that's the fast and dirty, you guys. I hope you enjoyed this update. Please make sure to reach out to us on social to tell us if you want more like this. And we'll be back Monday with your regularly scheduled programming. You can find all the source material for this episode on our website, crimejunkiepodcast.com. You can also follow us on Instagram at crimejunkiepodcast. The Crime Junkie is an AudioChuck production. So what do you think, Chuck? Do you approve? Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr