Jump to content

Talk:Disappearance of the Beaumont children

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial message

[edit]

I was wondering if the Beaumont children were the same ones that the Lemony Snicket books are based on? Does anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chedcat (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a new name?

[edit]

I propose we move this article to Beaumont children disappearance to bring the article title more in line with the remainder of the Australian crime articles covering disappearances, such as the Azaria Chamberlain disappearance, and the Peter Falconio disappearance. -- Longhair | Talk 13:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Ambi 14:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)`[reply]
I'm not opposed.--Cyberjunkie 05:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- Longhair | Talk 06:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: I knew I had seen you somewhere before! I was thinking about that since your thread at b'crat noticeboard. Found this out of sheer co-incidence. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

[edit]

Should that Biography WikiProject banner really be there?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaKucsma (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other cases and a possible solution?

[edit]

The section titled "Other cases and a possible solution" is deceiving and should be cleaned up in general. There is no "possible solution" presented, although it may be inferred due to the mention of other children who had been murdered. If there is a definitive "possible solution" to explore, it should be explained. GCD1 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Have changed it to "other cases" which I think could be improved upon, but I can't think of a better header at the moment. Rossrs 20:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Other Possible Related Cases" maybe? Just a suggestion...Engr105th (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bevan Spencer von Einem

[edit]

When describing the claims of the witness (presumably Mr. B, though the article fails to name him), the article relates his claims regarding what von Einem said as fact, rather than hearsay. For example, "Von Einem also told the witness that he had taken two girls from the Adelaide Oval during a football match." Since this is not proven fact, shouldn't it read "Von Einem also allegedly told the witness that he had taken two girls from the Adelaide Oval during a football match"? Evil bacteria (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "Von Einem matches the police sketches of the suspect in both the Beaumont and Adelaide Oval cases" is not correct. He is elsewhere said to "somewhat resemble" the man in the Beaumont case.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use self-published sources as this article has BLP ramifications

[edit]

Per WP:BLPSPS, we cannot use self-published sources to discuss who might be the perpetrator. Some of the people involved with this crime are still living. I just removed three of these blogs and websites. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the day was a scorcher... that's why Nancy gave them permission.

[edit]

Adelaide that day was sweltering through a scorcher... that's partly why Nancy gave them permission to go to the beach. It should be mentioned. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really doesn't need mentioning. It's not especially relevant and it's really rather dull besides. 70.54.140.168 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beaumont children disappearance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‘Corrections’

[edit]

To the editor CHANGES IN CAPS

Stuart Mullins here Co Author of the Satin Man Uncovering the mystery of the missing Beaumont Children Forwarder and researcher Searching for the missing Beaumont Children. These are some mistakes important missing pieces regarding what has been written in Wiki Pedia .Some information that should be included about the children's disappearance .Using 3 reference books where this information can be verified.... the other book which is the Satin Man Chapter in Michael Madigans The Missing Beaumont Children. See below with corrections :

Police investigating the case found several witnesses who had seen the children in Colley Reserve near the beach in the company of a tall, blond ( " HIS HAIR WAS LIGHT BROWN AND BRUSHED BACK PARTED TO ONE SIDE" AS NOTED IN THE SATIN MAN BOOK , SEARCHING FOR THE BEAUMONT CHILDREN BOOK AND THE MISSING BEAUMONT CHILDREN BOOK HE DID NOT HAVE BLOND HAIR ) and thin-faced man with a sun-tanned complexion of thin to athletic build in his mid-30s TO EARLY 40s ( ......Searching for there Beaumont Children page 52 )


and wearing swimming trunks.[9] The children WENT OVER TO THE MAN .( IN THE MISSING BEAUMONT CHILDREN MICHAEL MADIGAN ) were playing with him[10][11] and appeared relaxed and to be enjoying themselves.[7]:36

PLEASE ADD AS IN ALL 3 BOOKS :

Later the man approached a couple close by and asked:…………….. “Did any of you people see anyone with our clothes?”

When asked why he said, “We’ve had some money taken from our clothes.”

Another witness it is believed stated the man said: “Has anyone been messing with our clothes? We have had our money pinched”.

The man ( WALKED NORTH AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN'S BUS STOP AND WENZELS BAKERY WITH OUT ANY MONEY ) CHAPTER ONE OF THE SATIN MAN and off to change while the children ( FOLLOWED AND ) waited for him, CHAPTER ONE THE SATIN MAN and he and the children were seen walking together as a group away from the beach some time later, which the police estimated to be around 12:15 pm.[12]

Jim and Nancy Beaumont described their children, particularly Jane, as shy.[13] For them to be playing so confidently with a stranger seemed out of character. Investigators theorised that the children had perhaps met the man during a previous visit or visits and had grown to trust him.[14] A chance remark at home, which seemed insignificant at the time, supports this theory. Arnna had told her mother that Jane had "got a boyfriend down the beach".[12] Nancy Beaumont thought she meant a playmate and took no further notice until after the disappearance.[12]

A shopkeeper at nearby Wenzel's Bakery also reported Jane Beaumont had bought pasties and a meat pie with a £1 note.[12] Police viewed this as further evidence that they had been with another person, for two reasons: the shopkeeper knew the children well from previous visits and reported that they had never purchased a meat pie before; and, the children's mother had given them only 6 shillings, enough for their bus fare and food, and not £1.[15][16] Police believed it had been given to them by somebody else.[17] THE CHILDREN BOUGHT 1 PIE 5 PASTIES 6 FINGER BUNS AND 2 LARGE BOTTLES OF FIZZY DRING WITH A POUND NOTE.NOTED IN ALL 3 BOOKS REGARDING THE BEAUMONT CHILDREN

Subject/headline

"Their house was at 109 Harding Street"

[edit]

Do we need to list the exact address? The house still exists and is still a private home. Should Wikipedia really encourage pranksters and ghoul tourism? thoughts, @Melonkelon: ? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably remove it. It's not essential to include the full address. Just giving the street name is enough, in my opinion. Melonkelon (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disappearance_of_the_Beaumont_children&oldid=1206209836"