Jonbenet and Jane Beaumont clues

Jonbenet was reported to said she's getting a secret visit from Santa on Christmas, she evidently told this to her mother playmate.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaumont_children_disappearance

Jane Nartare Beaumont (aged 9; born 10 September 1956), Arnna Kathleen Beaumont (aged 7; born 11 November 1958), and Grant Ellis Beaumont (aged 4; born 12 July 1961) were three siblings collectively known as the Beaumont children who disappeared from Glenelg Beach near Adelaide, South Australia on Australia Day (26 January) 1966.

Their case resulted in one of the largest police investigations in Australian criminal history[1] and remains one of Australia's most infamous cold cases.

The huge attention given to this case, its significance in Australian criminal history, and the fact that the mystery of their disappearance has never been explained, has led to the story being revisited by the press on a regular basis. It is also viewed by many social commentators as a significant event in the evolution of Australian society, with a large number of people changing the way they supervised their children on a daily basis.


Jane Beaumont of the famous Beaumont missing persons case

Background
The beachside suburb of Glenelg, where the Beaumont children were last seen

The children lived with their parents Jim and Nancy Beaumont in Harding Street, Somerton Park, a suburb of Adelaide. Not far from their home was Glenelg, a popular beach-side resort, that the children often visited. On Australia Day 26 January 1966, a hot summer day, the children took a five-minute bus journey from their home to the beach. Jane, the eldest child, was considered responsible enough to care for the two younger children, and their parents were not concerned. They left home at 10am and were expected to return home by noon. Their mother became worried when they had still not returned by 3pm.[2]
Police investigation
Children with a tall, blond man

Police investigating the case found several witnesses who had seen the children near the beach, in the company of a tall, blond man, of thin to athletic build and in his mid-30s.[3] The children were playing with him, and appeared relaxed and to be enjoying themselves. The man and the children were seen walking away from the beach some time later, which the police estimated to be around 12:15 pm.[4] A shopkeeper reported Jane Beaumont had bought pasties and a meat pie with a £1 note around the same time.[4]

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.
Mrs. Beaumont had given the children only enough coins for their bus fare and food and had not given them a £1 note. Police believed it had been given to them by somebody else.

Last confirmed sighting and societal effects

At about 3 pm the children were seen walking alone, away from the beach, along Jetty Road, in the general direction of their home. The witness, a postman, knew the children well, and his statement was regarded as factual. He said the children had stopped to say hello to him, and seemed cheerful. Police could not determine why the reliable children, already three hours late, were strolling alone and seemingly unconcerned. This was the last confirmed sighting of the children. It has been suggested that the postman was mistaken on when he encountered the children, and that he actually met them before noon.

Mr and Mrs Beaumont described their children, particularly Jane, as shy. 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. 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". Mrs Beaumont thought she meant a playmate and took no further notice until after the disappearance.

^
http://www.defrostingcoldcases.com/in-search-of-jane-grant-and-arnna/

Vidocq thinks there are two possibilities. One is that the tall man assured Jane that he knew her parents very well. He assured her that he was going to make a phone call to let their mother know they would be late. He assured Jane that everything would be alright. The only person who could have done that is someone Jane met before and in different settings, hence a friend of the family. The second possibility is that Jane was not her shy self, and that would only have been possible if she had been given a relaxing drug. Remember that the meat pie was not a regular purchase? Is it possible that the meat pie was later drugged with a relaxant, when the children were not watching? Since the postman did not differentiate between Jane and the other siblings when he mentioned they looked happy, Vidocq assumes all three must have eaten from the meat pie.

^

my thoughts - the blonde man was Jane's boyfriend, and they met previously. He hatched a plan to abduct her and her siblings for sexual reasons - no ransom was ever demanded. I don't agree with Vidocq he's necessarily a friend of the family.

Perhaps Jonbenet met Santa and had an arrangement with her before her murder.

Description of the postman please Mr Pill.

Inspector Rex wrote:Description of the postman please Mr Pill.

are you thinking the postman did it? b/c i had thought the same thing

i found this

http://www.beaumontchildren.com/beaumontThePostman.html


The Postman

Visitors to this website have often asked if the postman was a suspect for the children's disappearance. Nothing I have read about the case suggests he was. The most basic knowledge of investigative procedures suggests that he must have been a suspect, but despite his erratic recollection of the time of his meeting I can only assume that he was eliminated from enquiries.

Of the eyewitnesses who saw the children at the beach on the day they disappeared, the postman Mr Patterson is probably the best known.There are two reasons for this. Firstly, he was one of the only witnesses who knew who the children personally. Secondly, he gave conflicting accounts as to what time of day he'd seen them.

It is not in dispute that Mr Patterson saw the children. By his own account, he was in Jetty Road and the children were walking east along the footpath. They appeared to be about to cross the road towards Moseley Street. As he put it later: 80

   "We all stopped, and the children said 'It's the postie!' "

The children were behaving normally and there was no sign of anybody with them.

The problem lies in the timing. Mr Patterson first said he saw the children at the start of his round, at 1:45pm. He then revised his opinion and said he saw them at the end of his round, at 2:55pm. These two versions of events cannot both be true, and some of the speculation about the case has been based on how late the children stayed at the beach. They were meant to return home on the midday bus.

What has become apparent much more recently is that the police, having reviewed the movements of the children, believe that Mr Patterson was entirely mistaken. According to the official account of the children's known movements, Mr Patterson met them at about 10:15am. While this does not fit with Mr Patterson's memory of events it does fit the other known movements much better.
^

i don't think mr patterson had anything to do w/ this, but his claim the children were walking alone as late as 2:55pm would call into question the blond man at the beach.

From a review of "Searching for the Beaumont Children" by Alan J Whitacker "South Australia Police have concluded that the postman Tom Patterson's sighting of the Beaumont children occurred at 10:15 and not the early afternoon,"

Of course, if it was YOU who took them, then you might cover for yourself by saying you saw them alone much later....... So even if he WAS thoroughly investigated and it was determined that he could not have done it, then the only explanation for the incorrect information is that he KNEW who did.

On a 40 degree day in Adelaide, no postman would be delivering letters at 3pm. He might be at the beach instead!

Inspector Rex wrote:From a review of "Searching for the Beaumont Children" by Alan J Whitacker  "South Australia Police have concluded that the postman Tom Patterson's sighting of the Beaumont children occurred at 10:15 and not the early afternoon,"

Of course, if it was YOU who took them, then you might cover for yourself by saying you saw them alone much later.......  So even if he WAS thoroughly investigated and it was determined that he could not have done it, then the only explanation for the incorrect information is that he KNEW who did.  

On a 40 degree day in Adelaide, no postman would be delivering letters at 3pm.  He might be at the beach instead!

yeah but why didn't the eyewitnesses who saw the kids with a tall blonde adult male identify Tom Patterson as the one they saw at the beach?

Maybe it wasn't him.
Maybe they didn't know the postie.
Maybe they didn't recognise him out of uniform.

Inspector Rex wrote:Maybe it wasn't him.
Maybe they didn't know the postie.
Maybe they didn't recognise him out of uniform.

here is a suggested timeline
http://www.beaumontchildren.com/beaumontAtTheBeach.html

At the Beach

At 10:10am on 26 January 1966, the Beaumont children caught a bus to go to the beach. The bus stop was on the corner of Diagonal Road and Harding Street, less than 100 metres from their home. The bus driver, Mr I. D. Monroe, later confirmed carrying the children on his bus. A woman passenger also noticed them, being able to recall later the colours of the clothes the children were wearing, and that Jane carried a copy of the book Little Women. The bus continued north-west along Diagonal Road, then north along Brighton Road before turning left to travel west along Jetty Road. From Jetty Road the bus turned left and halted at a stop in Moseley Street, only a short stroll from the beach. It was at this point that the children left the bus, at 10:15am.

The movements of the children for the next 45 minutes are not precisely known. Police believe that the local postman, Tom Patterson, saw the children walking along Jetty Road towards the beach at this time. Mr Patterson knew the children and they said "It's the postie!" 79 However Mr Patterson, trying to recall later, believed that this encounter happened in the afternoon, not the morning.

At about 11am, a 74 year old woman (Woman 1) was sitting in front of the Holdfast Sailing Club building on a bench under some trees. Woman 1 saw the three Beaumont children playing under a sprinkler on the lawn of the Colley Reserve. A man wearing blue swimming trunks was lying face down on the grass. He seemed to be watching the children. About 15 minutes later she saw the man frolicking with the children, who were flicking him with their towels.

Between 11am and 11:15 a school friend of Jane's also saw the children. She did not speak with them.

At around 11:45am the Beaumont children entered the nearby Wenzel's cake shop 77 and purchased some pasties and a pie, using a £1 note. Mrs Beaumont was later adamant that she had given Jane only eight shillings and sixpence 78. The children were due to catch the noon bus home in about 15 minutes.

At about 12pm, another woman (Woman 2, who had earlier seen Woman 1), was sitting on a nearby bench. The bench was also occupied by an elderly couple (Woman 3 and her husband) and the elderly couple's 10 year old granddaughter. A man and three children approached. The man matched the description of the man seen earlier by Woman 1. Woman 2 was later almost certain that two of the children were Jane and Grant. She was positive that the third child was Arnna.

With the children trailing, the man asked the four on the bench if they had seen anyone interfering with his clothes; some money was missing. They told him that they hadn't seen anything and the man returned to the children. Woman 3 watched them and saw the man dressing the children. She thought this odd, especially when the man pulled up Jane's shorts over her swimming costume, as Jane seemed easily old enough to do this herself. At a press conference eight days later, Mrs Beaumont expressed surprise at the same thing. She thought it almost impossible that Jane, a shy child, would have let someone else dress her. However, according to the elderly couple, the children seemed very friendly with the man.

Having dressed the children, the man then picked up a pair of trousers and a towel. Woman 2 said that he walked away with the children and passed out of sight behind the Glenelg Hotel. Woman 3 said that he went to the Colley Reserve changing rooms. By this time it may have been 12:15pm.

These were the last corroborated sightings of the Beaumont children, and police now consider the children to have gone missing at about midday on 26 January 1966.

There were a further two possible sightings:

At approximately 1:45 pm, a visiting man from Broken Hill saw a man with children he believed to be the Beaumonts, leaving the beach. The man matched the description of the man seen earlier, except that he had light brown and not blonde hair.

The postman, Mr Patterson, may have seen the children in the afternoon, rather than in the morning as police believe. Patterson maintained that he'd seen them either at the start of his round, at 1:45pm, or at 2:55pm at the end of it. In his encounter with the children he saw nobody with them.

The sighting by the man from Broken Hill, plus the fact that the children would be walking towards the bus stop at the right time to catch the 2pm bus, suggests that if Mr Patterson did see the children in the afternoon it would have been at 1:45pm. Contrary to this, however, Mr Patterson later said that the encounter was at the end of his round, at 2:55pm.

However, the comparitive lateness of these timings has led police to believe that Patterson was probably mistaken and that he'd actually seen the children in the morning, just after they'd left the bus. Police believe that the other sighting at 1:45pm cannot be relied upon either. The most likely scenario seems to be that the children went missing at about midday.

They have not been seen since.
^


based on the timeline as provided in the documentary 10am they arrived at the beach when they met the blonde man.

presumably postie was delivering mail. he was on the job, and evidently clocked in and out. so it would require him to clock in his job, deliver mail, then somehow stop switch to swimming trunks and meet the kids on the beach, abduct them, then switch back to his uniform and finish delivering mail.

if there were complaints that families did not get their mail that day then yeah that would look bad for postie.

if postie is correct and he saw them walking alone around 2:55pm then what of the blonde man?

And yet, police now believe he saw them earlier.

This needs to be clarified. If he did not see anyone with them, maybe it was because he was the man who was with them?

Do we know the age of the postie?

Inspector Rex wrote:And yet, police now believe he saw them earlier.

This needs to be clarified.  If he did not see anyone with them, maybe it was because he was the man who was with them?

Do we know the age of the postie?

i think it's worth noting

1
At approximately 1:45 pm, a visiting man from Broken Hill saw a man with children he believed to be the Beaumonts, leaving the beach. The man matched the description of the man seen earlier, except that he had light brown and not blonde hair.

2
Patterson maintained that he'd seen them either at the start of his round, at 1:45pm, or at 2:55pm at the end of it. In his encounter with the children he saw nobody with them.

The sighting by the man from Broken Hill, plus the fact that the children would be walking towards the bus stop at the right time to catch the 2pm bus, suggests that if Mr Patterson did see the children in the afternoon it would have been at 1:45pm
^
did visiting man see children with Patterson Postie at 1:45pm? does Postie have light brown hair?

perhaps the blonde man at the beach is a red herring.

Postie could have offered a lift to the children at 1:45pm

Does seem he has incriminated himself, don't you think?

Inspector Rex wrote:Does seem he has incriminated himself, don't you think?

he has one or more alibis 1- he's working, delivering mail and 2-witnesses did not identify him as the blonde man on the beach.

Inspector Rex wrote:Does seem he has incriminated himself, don't you think?

i can't believe it's been 4 years

4 years. in that time my mother developed Alzheimer's.
Wed May 29, 2019

anyhow,

while researching the murder of lindsay buziak there was a link on youtube to this

The Beaumont Children Documentary



watch at 17 minutes,

after the children seen the postman they enter a bakery and ordered sweets and were seen by staff