Britt (5:19)

Like maybe they're hiding out somewhere because maybe their parents are angry with them because they didn't come home on time.

Ashley Flowers (5:24)

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 10:00 that evening. Now, mind you, this is like a full 12 hours since the kids got on that bus that morning.

Britt (6:39)

Yeah.

Ashley Flowers (6:40)

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 aqua lung 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, in 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. Like, you know, with kid logic, when you know 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.

Britt (7:42)

It seems like everything seems like a good idea.

Ashley Flowers (7:45)

Yeah. So they're thinking like if Jane, Arne 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.

Britt (8:04)

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?

Ashley Flowers (8:15)

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, like, 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 like, 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.

Britt (9:20)

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?

Ashley Flowers (9:26)

Yeah, I mean, it was. Yeah, super packed.

Britt (9:28)

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.

Ashley Flowers (9:38)

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. Investigation. Numerous witnesses who were on or near Glenelg beach on the day that the kids disappear tell investigators about seeing The Beaumont children playing with an unidentified man. Now, these statements and the South Australians police incident report place the children and their mysterious companion at a place called Collie 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 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 determine that he had to have seen them in the morning based on when Tom was working. And they put that site 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 like 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 11:30 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, like rummaging through their things because she was like 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 gonna send you a picture of the sketch that they came up with.

Britt (13:30)

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. Like, what else did the witness, like, pick up on? Like, how was he acting with the kids? What was his demeanor? How were the kids with him? Stuff like that.

Ashley Flowers (13:49)

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 and everyone was having a good time. Not, you know, I think that's completely different from what we might imagine of him just like shoving them in a car or forcibly taking them. And what we have from this lady too, about him, like 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 Glenelga, and this bakery was in very easy walking distance from both the beach and the Caulif 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 £1 note.

Britt (15:01)

Okay, what's so special about that?

Ashley Flowers (15:04)

Well, a £1 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.

Britt (15:20)

So the police are thinking maybe the strange man gave them this £1 note.

Ashley Flowers (15:25)

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?

Britt (15:39)

Okay, but why would he steal less money and give them more back?

Ashley Flowers (15:45)

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. Right, so learning about the sighting of this man and even the last sighting without him, but this £1 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. 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 mention bringing the Beaumont kids back from Hobart on the island of Tasmania.

Britt (17:40)

Wait. If he's trying to make a call out, I guess I don't understand how he's overhearing this conversation.

Ashley Flowers (17:46)

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 Astro Telecoms 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. Like, 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, like, 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 time 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 described by witnesses had nothing to do with their disappearance. And the police, as I'm sure you can imagine, are initially pretty skeptical.

Britt (21:15)

Right.

Ashley Flowers (21:15)

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. Like, I'm going back to Europe. Like, kind of washed his hands a bit. Like, they won't do what I say, so peace out. Now, despite him leaving, like, 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.

Britt (21:53)

Oh, my God.

Ashley Flowers (21:54)

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. Yes. Like, remember there was, like, that house that. That everyone. 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.

Britt (22:10)

And then they finally did because there.

Ashley Flowers (22:11)

Was so much, like, public attention that I think they were finally like, okay, we're gonna do this. But then after we do this, can we just do our jobs and can everyone calm down?

Britt (22:20)

Right.

Ashley Flowers (22:20)

Plus, it didn't help that the place that he wanted them to, like, dig up was this warehouse and someone, like, 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.

Britt (22:35)

Okay, but how did the public work around it? I can't imagine that they could just show up and be like, we're gonna dig here.

Ashley Flowers (22:42)

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 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 Beaumonts home. It's postmarked from the Melbourne suburb of Dandenong, over 400 miles east of Adelaide. And it claims to be from James. And this is what it says as published in the Satin man book. Brit, I'm actually going to have you read this.

Britt (24:26)

Dear Mum 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. Before 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 Arne 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 on. You have to pick us up in front of the Dandenong post office at 10 minutes to 9 o'clock next Monday 26th 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 it 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.

Ashley Flowers (25:50)

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, Brit, I don't know if you noticed, but the letter writer actually misspelled spells 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 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.

Britt (26:45)

Okay, but this guy's 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?

Ashley Flowers (26:57)

So here's the thing. Stan tells the Beaumonts that he himself, 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. 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 have got to let this go. But he just couldn't. So going over his superiors 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.

Britt (28:02)

Wait, is this actually legit?

Ashley Flowers (28:04)

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, 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.

Britt (29:05)

But is this one real?

Ashley Flowers (29:06)

I mean, the general belief is that this is yet another hoax.

Britt (29:10)

Even the call?

Ashley Flowers (29:11)

Even the call.

Britt (29:13)

So does the stand guy let go of it now?

Ashley Flowers (29:16)

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 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.

Britt (29:41)

He keeps getting their hopes up.

Ashley Flowers (29:43)

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 beaumont. Now it's two young girls, 11 year old Joanne Radcliffe and four year old Kirsty Gordon. Now 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 Kirsty is there with her grandmother, Rita. Now, since Rita knows Joanne's parents, she lets Joanne take Kirsty to the bathroom around 3:50pm during the match's third quarter. She expects that the two girls are going to 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 Kirstie 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.

Britt (31:18)

Oh my gosh, forget about there are two missing kids.

Ashley Flowers (31:21)

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? Is 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 Kirstie'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 Kirsty 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 girl's 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 in, around or near the stadium and kids were always wanting to play with them. But he describes this man as being a, about 5 foot 8 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 account. And they don't get to talk to this guy till like a week later. The Canberra Times reported back on August 31 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 Kirsty 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. 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, Britt.

Britt (34:02)

This is the same guy.

Ashley Flowers (34:03)

This is exactly the same guy. I mean, the long face, it's the.

Britt (34:07)

Same guy with a hat on. That's the only difference.

Ashley Flowers (34:08)

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'll call him Oval Guy. He's described as around 5, 8, and Beaumont guy is described as over 6ft 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.

Britt (34:35)

Oh, definitely. We're five'two Everybody's tall.

Ashley Flowers (34:37)

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 Kirsty'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 Maiponga 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.

Britt (35:59)

Wait, go back. What other murder case?

Ashley Flowers (36:02)

So it's actually multiple murder cases. So when this is going on, there were 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 a 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, Neal, 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.

Britt (37:03)

Do we know how the fifth person died?

Ashley Flowers (37:05)

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 controlled burns. So. 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. 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 Bevan. 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, Bevan 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 Allen and Mark.

Britt (38:09)

This story is bananas, but I'm getting super lost. What's the connection to the Beaumonts again?

Ashley Flowers (38:14)

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 Kirsty 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. So 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. Like, 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, like, in jail and off the streets. Like, 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. Like, 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 makes. Makes no sense to me if you're also participated in 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. 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.

Britt (40:27)

Right. The victim profiles don't match at all.

Ashley Flowers (40:29)

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 Bevan 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 that 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 if you do any research on this case, his name is going to come up.

Britt (41:02)

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.

Ashley Flowers (41:11)

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 one 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 5 year old and 7 year old pair of sisters. Now he's charged with other like whole host of offenses for sexually assaulting a young woman and other girls and in his own family. And the reason he even got tied to it initially was that Andrew Rule actually reported for son Harold in 2001 that a witness saw Arthur on TV after his 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 David 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, the case getting renewed over and over, no like, 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 year 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 Allen 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 Stuart is a woman named Angela, who believes that her former father in law had something to do 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. Now, at first, Allan 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, Allan realizes that not only is Angela's story fascinating, it's also really believable. So he and Stuart do some investigation basically into Angela and her background. Basically, they're trying to collect references to see, you know, if she can be considered trustworthy.

Britt (45:22)

Yeah, like to make sure that she's legit.

Ashley Flowers (45:23)

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. 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.

Britt (45:52)

Yeah.

Ashley Flowers (45:52)

Now the title of the book refers to a brand new suspect, the Satin Man. And the Satin man is Angela's example, 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.

Britt (46:17)

So who is it?

Ashley Flowers (46:18)

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 KN 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 we called a 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. Like, 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.

Britt (47:23)

I'm sorry, wait.

Ashley Flowers (47:25)

What sets?

Britt (47:27)

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.

Ashley Flowers (47:40)

It's weird, right?

Britt (47:42)

What? Satin.

Ashley Flowers (47:43)

Satin.

Britt (47:44)

And, like, he can't see it.

Ashley Flowers (47:45)

He can't hear it rustle, can't be around it.

Britt (47:48)

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.

Ashley Flowers (48:03)

Well, no, that's true. Like, the obsession with satin doesn't. Except, according to Harry's son, Hayden, there's more. Like, a lot more. Harry was a violent alcoholic who loved firearms. And his son says that he kept guns all over the house. House. And 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 satin 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. 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.

Britt (49:02)

Right. It was too traumatic and triggering for him.

Ashley Flowers (49:04)

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 Allen and Stuart, they've collected a whole laundry list of circumstantial evidence that cast 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 Castaway 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. Like, 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 £1 note?

Britt (50:00)

Yeah.

Ashley Flowers (50:00)

So, apparently, Harry was big on flaunting his wealth by handing out £1 notes to Hayden and his friends to, like, get them out of the house on Saturday so he could be alone with his satin.

Britt (50:12)

It would be like, like our $10 bill from our parents. Yeah.

Ashley Flowers (50:15)

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, like, occurred with Harry as a child, though we don't know what that is explicitly. Now, in the book, Nick tells Stewart about how Harry would rub up against him when they went swimming together. And that's kind of like the most that we got.

Britt (50:54)

Okay, but didn't Hayden say that he saw the Beaumont kids with Harry?

Ashley Flowers (50:58)

Yes. So this is, like, our biggest piece of circumstantial evidence. Australia 7 News did a documentary about Harry in 2018, and they have audio of an interview that Hayden did with one of the Satin 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.

D (51:27)

Can you describe to me ones a little bit shorter than the rest, like, short haircuts? I think I had tails. Beach towers. Did you see them talking to Harry? Yeah. Did you hear what they were saying?

Britt (51:42)

No.

D (51:42)

Too far away. How long had you Seen them. For how long were you standing talking to Harry? Only long enough until he took them inside or he took them inside. And then after that, I came out of the cubby house and went inside to see if it was going on. And the front door was open, so I just assume I left out the front door. Did you hear any noises or any screaming or any shouting or.

Britt (52:12)

Nothing.

D (52:13)

Any gunshots? Yeah, we hear. We had some gunshots go off, but Harry's always letting off gunshots. That's nice enough. There was all of the kids in the house. There was gunshots going on? No, not in them. Plus, how many shots did you hear? Four.

Ashley Flowers (52:32)

Now, I 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.

Britt (53:03)

Okay, but that doesn't mean anything because he said he heard gunshots all the time. Right, Right.

Ashley Flowers (53:08)

No, that's. That's totally accurate. But later in that same interview, Hayden says that he saw Harry putting some big, like, 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 dress 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 Collier Reserve and Glenn El Beach. Now, Hayden believes that the kids were buried at Harry's factory in what he calls a sand pit. Now, Harry's factory, again, very close to everything we're talking about. It was just a short drive from the beach.

Britt (53:53)

Does Harry have any resemblance to the sketch?

Ashley Flowers (53:56)

Brit? The resemblance is uncanny. I want to send you this GIF. 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 find Flip.

Britt (54:18)

Oh, my God. That is right. Eerie. Like, obviously he's older than the sketch, but he would be.

Ashley Flowers (54:27)

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.

Britt (54:38)

Honestly, the eeriest thing for me is the hairline is.

Ashley Flowers (54:41)

Yeah, he's got that, like, identical high forehead. The hairline, spot on. He does have kind of a long face.

Britt (54:49)

Yeah. And, like, the ear shapes, the nose shape.

Ashley Flowers (54:52)

This is creepy.

Britt (54:54)

We talked about it a lot, where 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.

Ashley Flowers (55:07)

To me, you know, the sketch has, like, 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 we're gonna. 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 Alan and Stewart first get in touch. And this is back in, like, two, 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 Stuart 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. 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, 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, like, mentioning why he's interested or that it's connected to Jane. And Norma gets, like, kind of upset and says that, oh, you know, I just bought it at a thrift store, which is kind of weird for a woman her age. Like, they kind of point out that. 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.

Britt (57:45)

Okay, that's so shady, though. Like, if you just bought it or bought it in general and it was just hanging around at your house, like, why all of a sudden would you just pitch it?

Ashley Flowers (57:55)

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. Allan and Stuart 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 paper, 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 1 square meter space in search of anything to definitively tie Harry to the Beaumont children. But like so many times before this dig turned up nothing.

Britt (59:20)

I feel like the families of these kids have just seen so much, like, hope that's dashed and then hope that's dashed. Like, do they have any family members that are still around? Like, their parents? Like, this is 50 years out.

Ashley Flowers (59:33)

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 to give Jim and Nancy some closure after all of these years of waiting for the truth. 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, 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. @ 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 the physical evidence of sexual assault is, you know, 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 67 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 castaway 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 7 yards long, about 1 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 castellay factory. Melinda McMillan wrote for Newcastle 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 so it's not a lot up front, 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 second dig at Castelloi begins. But it's called off after less than 12 hours when investigators turn up nothing but some old animal bones.

Britt (63:07)

Okay, but that doesn't clear Harry. Like, they've only dug a couple of places on his property.

Ashley Flowers (63:14)

Yeah, exactly. And especially with this, like, mountain, or at least a hill of circumstantial evidence, I think Harry is still a fantastic. 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, police still believe that the Adelaide Oval disappearances are connected to the Beaumont kid. So. 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 16 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.

Britt (64:34)

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 Phipp's 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.

Britt (65:08)

Not only the best time, but possibly the last time they even can truly.

Britt (65:12)

Like, whatever is gonna go in there will probably make it hard, if not impossible, to ever search this area again. 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 docu series about the Beaumonts coming out actually just the day after the dig on February 23rd. So keep an eye out for that. 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 Pangello 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.

Britt (66:47)

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.

Ashley Flowers (66:55)

Neither.

Britt (66:56)

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 going to 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.

Britt (67:15)

It'll be transferred over to the police.

Britt (67:16)

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 what that means. I don't know what it is they have that they're saying, like, no, definitely not. I'm gonna be really curious to watch this new docu series, figure out what has made them so confident in. In this area again, but particularly in this, like, new place there.

Britt (67:40)

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 a extensive search.

Britt (67:49)

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.

Ashley Flowers (67:59)

You guys.

Britt (67:59)

I hope you enjoyed this update. Please make sure to reach out to us on social to tell us if you want 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.

Britt (68:29)

You can also also follow us on Instagram crimejunkiepodcast.

Britt (69:09)

Crime Junkie is an audio Chuck production. So what do you think Chuck? Do you approve?