The Beaumont Children

The Beaumont family led a fairly lovely life in 1966. The mother, Nancy, was a stay-at-home mother who looked after the couple’s three children, while Jim, the father, was a linen products salesperson who roamed the neighborhood to meet with clients.
The couple had been residents of Adelaide for some time when Jane, their first child, was born there in September 1956. They then welcomed Arnna in November 1958 and Grant, their only child, in July 1961.
The little, idyllic-looking house at 109 Harding Street, located in Somerton’s suburbs, was home to the five Beaumont family members. If the name “Somerton” seems familiar to you, it may be because that’s where a 1948 man who was nameless and unknown was discovered there.

What concerns did the Beaumonts have in the weeks beforehand? They had no concerns about the safety of their children in their little corner of the Adelaide suburbs. Nothing to be afraid about.

The couple didn’t hesitate to let their children to escape to the beach during the sweltering summer months in Australia, when temperatures were steadily climbing and approaching 40 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit for us naive Americans). This was now becoming routine, and for weeks the three kids had made repeated trips to the beach and returned without any issues.
Despite the kids’ tendency to be bashful, it appeared to be beneficial for them. They were able to interact socially outside of the confines of the classroom, and it kept them active in the summer heat. The family’s seven-year-old daughter Arnna actually frequently made fun of Jane “having a guy down the beach.” The family didn’t give it much thought at the time.

The family at the time didn’t give Arnna’s remark a second thought, but why would they? It was only a joke, told by a young child of seven.
On January 25, Jim Beaumont made the decision to join his kids on one of these outings to the beach before leaving town. He wouldn’t see his kids for a few days because he was leaving on business. Grant, a four-year-old, walked over to say goodbye to his father just before he departed.

On the morning of January 26, 1966, everything appeared to be typical. It was Australia Day, which for those of us living abroad who are unfamiliar with Australian customs is very comparable to July 4th or Canada Day. It’s a day to honor Australian heritage and pride, and it’s a happy occasion.

Nancy didn’t hesitate when the kids requested to go to the beach due to the growing temperature. The kids would be occupied and content for a few hours.

On the morning of January 26, 1966, everything appeared to be typical. It was Australia Day, which for those of us living abroad who are unfamiliar with Australian customs is very comparable to July 4th or Canada Day. It’s a day to honor Australian heritage and pride, and it’s a happy occasion.
Nancy didn’t hesitate when the kids requested to go to the beach due to the growing temperature. She would have plenty of time to visit with a friend and it would keep the kids occupied and content for a few hours. She handed the kids eight shillings and sixpence in monies so they could buy snacks along the beach and then she let them go to the bus stop they wanted to go to.

A number of witnesses, including the bus driver, saw the kids board the bus at around 10:10 in the morning. The oldest, Jane, was holding a copy of “Little Women,” which had become one of her favorite books, according to a woman who saw them, board. This woman’s account was supported by her ability to recall the distinctive colors of the clothing worn by the three kids.

Around 10:15, the bus departed on its route, taking the kids to Glenelg Beach, the beach they frequented frequently. It is a palindrome, as I discovered in the associated “Thinking Sideways” podcast about this subject.

The children from Beaumont are virtually unknown for the next hour or so. The children’s neighborhood postman, who knew them well, remembered seeing them about this time. Tom Patterson, who could readily recognize the kids, claimed to have seen the three kids on Jetty Road, some ten or so blocks north of their home, walking in the direction of the beach. This wasn’t out of the ordinary for the three, so he made a short mental note of it, possibly slightly messing up the timeline. His early versions describe seeing the kids in the morning, on their way down to the Glenelg beach, however, he would later suggest it was probable he had seen them in the afternoon.

The Beaumont kids’ whereabouts for the next hour or so remain mainly a mystery. The children’s neighborhood postman, who was familiar with them, remembered seeing them at that time. Tom Patterson claimed to have seen the three kids on Jetty Road, some ten or so blocks north of where they resided, strolling in the direction of the beach. Patterson was able to readily recognize the kids. This wasn’t unusual for the three, so he made a short mental note of it and may have slightly messed up the timeline. However, according to his early claims, he saw the kids in the morning as they were making their way to the Glenelg beach. He would subsequently go on to say that it was conceivable he had seen the kids in the afternoon.

The locations of the Beaumont youngsters for the next hour or two are still entirely unknown. The children’s familiar neighborhood postman remembers seeing them at that time. About ten or so blocks north of where they resided, on Jetty Road, Tom Patterson claimed to have spotted the three children strolling toward the ocean. The children were quickly recognized by Patterson. He made a little mental note of it because it wasn’t unusual for the three, which might have slightly fouled up the timeline. His earliest recollections, however, indicate that he first encountered the children while they were walking to the Glenelg beach in the morning. Later, he would add that it was possible that he had seen the kids in the afternoon.

A senior citizen who was relaxing on a beach in front of the Holdfast Sailing Club at around 11:00 in the morning remembered seeing the three kids playing in a sprinkler at the Colley Reserve. It was not unusual for children to be playing in this location since it was a sizable grassy area that largely resembled a park. Nearly an hour after arriving, the kids were already at the beach. There were witnesses nearby who remembered seeing them, but regrettably, the size of the Adelaide region contributed to the presence of several tourists and strangers. The same elderly woman who saw the kids in the sprinklers also saw a younger-looking male watching the kids in blue swim trunks. Less than fifteen minutes later, this woman noticed him playing with the kids while he was still lying face down in the grass at the time.

This elderly woman and at least three other witnesses described the suspect as being around six feet one, slim, with blond hair, and having a thin-looking face. He had been observing the three Beaumont kids for a short while before making friends with them, and he was reportedly wearing a blue bathing suit.

The suspect was described by this elderly woman and at least three other witnesses as being around six feet one, skinny, with blond hair, and having what appeared to be a thin face. He was apparently wearing a blue bathing suit and had been watching the three Beaumont youngsters for a short period before becoming acquainted with them. Although it is uncertain who this man was, in the intervening years, he has emerged as a leading target for suspicion. Numerous speculations have been put up regarding the identity of this man, who to those who saw him appeared to be in his early to mid-thirties. There have been whispers that this man was the “boyfriend” that Arnna had mentioned at the family home, a man who had possibly been making friends with the kids for a few days or weeks. The children were seen leaving the beach with this unidentified man, but the truth of that incident would never be known.

The fact that the kids were leaving the beach with this untrustworthy man was unsettling, but the beachgoers weren’t the last to see the Beaumont kids alive.

Over the next half-hour or so, they would be spotted at Wenzel’s bakery. It happened sometime between 11:45 in the morning and 12:15 in the afternoon, however other versions give different times.

The kids reportedly came in to buy a few croissants and other small snacks, but they also bought a meat pie. One pound notes were used to pay for everything, which raises some intriguing questions. The first question is: For whom did the kids purchase the meat pie? The Beaumonts remember that none of their kids would have been interested in eating anything like this, especially before lunch, and that they would have spent their limited allowance on something sweet rather than a meat pie. Next, where did they acquire the money to buy their treats? Nancy Beamont can clearly remember only ever giving her kids eight shillings and sixpence—never a one pound note. This is analogous to a child receiving pocket money from their parents and then paying with a twenty dollar bill to buy a candy bar. Nancy recalls giving them just enough money to pay for their bus trip and to purchase a few snacks.

This implies that the children probably obtained the funds from a third party, most likely the odd beachside man and that they obtained the meat pie, particularly for him. It is unknown where he was at this time, but if he had terrible intentions for the three innocent Beaumont children, it makes sense that he would want to be seen with them as little as possible.

Perhaps he was waiting outside or on a nearby bench for the kids to come back to him.

There may have been other witnesses who observed the Beaumont kids with this man, and what they witnessed raised serious concerns.
He reportedly helped the kids put their clothing on after they had been playing in the sprinklers at the Colley Reserve for fifteen minutes. Even the witnesses thought this was quite strange at the moment, but they had no choice but to presume that the man was one of the kids since they appeared to be talking about him directly. With what we know about the kids, especially Jane, this seems unusual. Later, Nancy Beaumont would recollect that her shy nine-year-old daughter wouldn’t have felt comfortable asking a complete stranger to help her get dressed since she was quite shy. She was a child. Although she was young and occasionally overexcited, she wasn’t entirely naive.

An elderly woman was seated on a park bench close to two elderly people who were holding their grandchild. They claim that a strange man approached them and queried whether they had seen anyone tampering with his attire. He appeared to have abandoned it for a while before claiming to be short on cash.

Then, taking his time and seeming to enjoy it, he started dressing the kids immediately after that.

Sadly, this is the only recorded sighting of the Beaumonts by an eyewitness.

As they had been instructed to catch the midday bus home, Nancy Beaumont anticipated the kids returning soon.

She had arrived a little time earlier to get the kids’ lunch ready. She was astonished to see the bus arrive at their house, stop, and then leave without picking up her kids.

She immediately started to believe that the kids had missed the bus and would either walk home or take the next one, which would come around in a few hours. This wasn’t an emergency to her because they had evidently done both in the past.

We can now clearly discern the significant differences between the past and the present. Three young children would very rarely be given this much freedom and latitude today, therefore such an occurrence would not occur. But in this case, in quaint, small-town Glenelg, nothing seemed out of the ordinary.

The children may have been seen twice more in the hours following their last confirmed sighting, but nothing that investigators have ever determined to be true.

The first of these is the purported sighting by Tom Patterson, the local postman, who at first claimed to have seen the children in the morning but afterward changed his story. He claims that it is likely that he passed them in the early afternoon, which matches the narrative that they missed their bus at midday and began walking home. Despite popular belief, Jesus would have encountered the children between the hours of 1:45 and approximately three in the afternoon during his tour.
Tom Patterson’s shaky evidence, according to one theory I’ve seen floating about online, could be caused by the fact that Australia celebrates Australia Day as a public holiday, hence no mail is often delivered on this day. How could Tom Patterson remember seeing the kids during his work route if he wasn’t even working? This popular online sentiment may help to explain Tom Patterson’s confusion about the timeline, though I haven’t been able to confirm whether it was the case back in 1966.

The second sighting was made by a completely different person, a visitor from Broken Hill, an isolated town in the north that is several hours inland. He noticed three children who matched their descriptions departing with another man, who closely fit the description of the man provided by other witnesses. He appeared to be on the Glenelg beach where the kids had last been seen. The probable Beaumont kidnapper, according to one witness, had light brown-ish hair, not blond. This information caused many people, including the police, to doubt the veracity of the sighting. It might have just been a father and his three kids who were talking about the Beamonts and their potential kidnapper.
Nancy Beaumont was waiting for her kids to get home despite these possible sightings. Nancy Beaumont was at home waiting for her kids to return despite these possible sightings. The two o’clock bus arrived and left, but neither Jane, Arnna, nor Grant was in sight.

The children’s father, Jim Beaumont, left work just after three o’clock. He had been selling linens with a business partner in Snowtown, two hours to the north, in a completely different town.

Nancy had been waiting for any news or sight of his children at the family’s home, but when he got there, he learned that they hadn’t been seen in hours.

The two started out, attempting to follow in their three children’s footsteps as they made their way to the shore. For the next few hours, they went back and forth in search of their children, or at the at least, a hint left behind or someone who had seen them. Unfortunately, their efforts yielded no results.

Between their home and the beach, they were unable to locate their children or any of the children’s belongings. None of their clothes, towels, or even Jane’s copy of “Little Women” were present.

At around 7:30 that evening, some ten hours after the kids had left, Jim and Nancy made the decision to call the police. Nancy stayed at home in case Jane, Arnna, or Grant showed up while Jim spent the entire night looking for them.

The police formally reported the three Beaumont kids missing at some point the following morning, and the search for them then began.

Retracing the children’s movements and potential destinations was the first step in the inquiry. When they learned about the witnesses at or near the beach, the detectives started to piece together a timeline of the children’s movements.
The possibility that the kids had been carried away by the tide was almost immediately disregarded. None of their personal belongings were discovered on the shore, even though if this had been the case, at least one of them would have been discovered. The police would have discovered a book, a towel, or something like.
The case quickly attracted the attention of the entire country. Australia’s eyes were on Australia was watching Jim and Nancy Beaumont, who made an appeal for their children’s lives on TV and the radio five days later, on January 31.

The police received hundreds of tips, and nearly every call was properly probed. As you may have guessed, these were all dead ends. Anyone who noticed a youngster walking off by themselves or a group of children with a guy called the police and provided them with a possible route for a secure rescue. This, however, might have hurt the investigation because the police started looking around day and night for any hints or cues that might help with a safe rescue but couldn’t find any.

Everyone with a connection to the Beaumonts was looked into, including Jim Beaumont’s workplace and business associates as well as neighbors and family friends. The area of Adelaide was on fire as searchers looked for any signs of The Adelaide neighborhood was on fire as people searched for signs of the three children and looked for any errant sons who seemed out of place. Right away, the blond young man was identified as the prime suspect, and sketches were made based on what the witnesses had seen. You might try to acquire a good notion of this man’s appearance from the perspective of a witness online.

A local newspaper received a phone call about two weeks after the kids vanished. She reported the man on the other end of the phone as having a “foreign accent” after having been picked up by a newspaper telephonist.

The person on the other end of the line claimed to have Jane, Arnna, and Grant Beaumont, according to the telephonist, who hurriedly attempted to transfer the call to the newspaper’s head of staff.

He said in an accent, “I want reward money for them. It must be a worthwhile reward.

Unfortunately, the caller on the other end of the line abruptly hung up as the telephonist attempted to transfer the conversation to her boss. The cops didn’t dismiss the call straight away Unfortunately, the caller on the other end of the line abruptly hung up as the telephonist attempted to transfer the conversation to her boss. The police did not immediately rule out the call as a hoax, but it is unknown to the public if they decided to look into it further. Although it wasn’t the first time the case may have been tainted by dishonest pranksters and frauds, it would sadly not be the last.

The search for a cave or cove that the kids might have wandered off to or washed up on had detectives searching every nook and crevice of adjacent beaches almost immediately without success. Nothing, not even a piece of clothing or other belonging to the Beaumont trio, would be discovered.

The leads remained cold for a few more months, but when a woman came forward with information, police were finally informed. About six months had passed since the Beaumont kids vanished, but she insisted she saw something strange that January night. On the same night that the Beaumont family vanished, she discovered an abandoned house next door that she had assumed was uninhabited.

Although the Beaumont kids had vanished, she insisted that strange things had been observed that January night. On the same night that the Beaumonts vanished, she saw a man enter the abandoned house next door, which she had mistakenly thought was empty. He was accompanied by two little girls and a boy.

This mother asserted that the boy had left the house hours later and had begun to walk down the street when he was pursued and kidnapped by the man who was leading them.

For some reason that can only be conjectured, this woman decided not to report this to investigators for months.

First of all, I think it’s a little too convenient that a woman claimed to have witnessed something suspicious the night of a significant news event before deciding to give it some thought for roughly six months. If this is true—which I have serious doubts it is—then that might be among the fucking most vexing things you could possibly imagine. But it goes without saying that there wasn’t much new information during the course of the following few months. For at least a year following the disappearance, and even for months and years after that, people reported suspects and sightings. The Beaumont children were on the verge of becoming a cautionary story that would be remembered for decades, not just because people were watching out for their own children more vigilantly.

For lack of a better description, Erard Croiset was a 57-year-old psychic from the Netherlands. He asserts to be a parapsychologist and a psychometrist, two professions that are not grounded in science but rather in spirituality and paranormal beliefs.
Beginning in the years after World War 2, Croiset had experience assisting Dutch detectives with their cases. He reportedly assisted Dutch police in finding the young woman’s murderer, earning him respect not just in Holland but also in other European nations.
Con Polites, a successful businessman who was intrigued by the case, sent an invitation to Croiset to visit Australia in November 1966. The arrival of Croiset was significant in and of itself, garnering considerable media attention.

The Beaumont parents reportedly didn’t want to work with Croiset very much in November 1966 because they believed him to be a liar. Unsurprisingly, folks were eager to hear what he had to say despite that. This started to make the disappearance of the kids into a public spectacle and popularized the notion of the psychic detective in international media.

For the same reasons that Jim and Nancy Beaumont declined to meet with Croiset, police also made this decision. They thought he was a crock. The public, however, had the opposite sentiment and believed that Croiset would be able to find a clue that was just waiting to be found. 

Croiset boldly asserted that he didn’t think the Beaumont kids had been abducted at all, but rather had been trapped under the flooring of a recently built warehouse building when he greeted a sizable audience at the Glenelg beach where the Beaumont kids had vanished from. Additionally, he had the audacity to promise that he would find the kids in two days.

“I’ve seen a glimpse of the beginning for the kids. As I move there, I will have a vision right away “Croisot asserted. “I can almost certainly identify the location where the bodies will be found.

I’ve seen a glimpse of the children’s beginnings. As I move there, I shall get a vision right away “Croisot asserted. “I have a 90% confidence that I can locate where the bodies will be.

The police weren’t going to dig up the flooring of a private building based on a psychic’s suspicions because they already had doubts about Croiset. However, the general public banded together and raised more than $40,000 to pay the owner to dig up the warehouse’s flooring, which he did.

No indication that the Beaumonts had ever been there—not even a shred of evidence—was discovered. Croiset made a brief, failed visit to Australia before departing. Con Polites, the wealthy businessman who had paid for Croiset’s visit more than 30 years earlier, had the warehouse investigated in 1996 when it was scheduled to be razed, but again, nothing was found. Contrary to Croiset’s allegations, no sign of the Beaumont children was discovered there.

About two years had passed since Jane, Arnna, and Grant Beaumont vanished without a trace, and their parents still had no feeling of closure.

A letter showed up in the mail about this time in 1968. The letter, which was reportedly written by Jane herself and would have been eleven years old, was postmarked from the Melbourne suburb of Dandenong. The police believed the letters to be written in Jane’s own hand after comparing them to previous school assignments she had written, and this would be the first of two such letters. At the time, they considered them to be plausible and treated them as such because they appeared to be authentic enough for them.

The first letter from Jane stated that “the Man” was taking good care of the kids and that everything was well. This Man, who would stay unnamed throughout the letters, was reportedly providing for the children’s needs by making sure they were protected and fed properly.

Jim and Nancy Beaumont will soon receive a new letter in the mail, penned by “the Man” himself. The author of the letter asserted that although they had been named the children’s guardians, they would be willing to relinquish custody of them at any time and location of their choice. “You, Dad, have to wear a dark coat and white pants so that 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. We are all looking forward to seeing you next Monday. Please do not tell the police. The man did not mean to harm us. We still love you both love Jane, Arna, and Grant”

Evidently, this letter was not going to be added to the collection of others that Jim and Nancy have been gathering for more than two years. Even if it was a remote possibility, they would take it if it meant they could follow the instructions and get their kids back.
As a result, Jim traveled more than 700 kilometers to the Victoria suburb of Dandenong and waited outside the post office for more than three days. During this time, the Beaumonts called the police, who were already on the scene taking pictures. The media became involved in the events as well, and as rumors that Jim Beaumont was purportedly getting his children back spread, the area outside the Dandenongs became quite active. During this time, the Beaumonts called the police, who were already on the scene taking pictures. When news spread that Jim Beaumont was allegedly getting his children back, a strange crowd gathered in the area outside the Dandenong post office. The press also became interested in the events.

Unsurprisingly, no one claimed to be the parent of the Beaumont kids. Jim left Somerton for home without having accomplished anything.

A third letter came in the mail shortly after this fruitless journey to Dandenong. This letter purported to be from Jane and was written in the same hand as her initial letter. Jane said that “the Man” had been in Dandenong during Jim Beaumont’s visit, but that he had immediately departed the area after spotting an undercover police officer and would never return. The letter version of Jane claimed that “the Man” would be keeping the kids because the Beaumont parents had deceived him.

Detectives were able to examine the DNA on the letters around 25 years later, at a time when forensic testing was routine. They learned that a 41-year-old man, who was a teenager at the time and had written the letters as a sick joke, was the author.

The man had felt awful about his heinous activities as a teenager and regretted ever having been part in such a thing, but sadly the time period in which they could have brought charges had long since gone. However, one must consider how his guilt compares to the years of suffering endured by the Beaumonts and the decades-long doubts that must have pervaded their minds. 25 August 1973 – The three Beaumont children have been missing for more than seven years, and nearly ten years later, they are little more than a cautionary story. a relic from the past. a tale with no resolution.

A book named “The Satin Man” that claimed wealthy Adelaide businessman Harry Phipps was accountable for the kidnapping of the Beaumont children was published in 2013. This was based on testimony from other family members and evidence from Phipps’ disturbed kid, but when asked for a comment, police said they were not looking into Phipps for the disappearance of Beaumont.
This past January marked the 50th anniversary of the disappearance of the Beaumont children; if they were still alive, each of the kids would be in their early to mid-sixties. Jim and Nancy, their parents, are still living and are now both in their 90s. Both maintain their seclusion but doubtless harbor hopes that they will Both people maintain their privacy but doubtless harbor hopes of receiving a kind response regarding the whereabouts of their children.

On January 19, one week before the case’s 50th anniversary, the police got a tip over the phone that sparked a renewed interest in the case. Although the police continue to believe the case may be solved and the $1 million prize is still in place, they have realized that if a suspect is to be named, it must be done right away. Any potential suspects would be between 70 and 100 years old by this point, thus any fresh information would likely come from a confession on a dying person’s deathbed or from family members.

Please get in touch with the Adelaide authorities if you have any information. The futures of Kirste Gordon, Joanne Ratcliffe, Grant Beaumont, and Arnna Beaumont are still unknown at this moment.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.