RM share this grim story in continuance of earlier coverage of the International Tribunal for Natural Justice ( INTJ) and the testimonies of Rachel Vaughan. The suppression of the findings of the Mulligan Enquiry is a protective blanket draped over the horrific truth to protect all SA Government agencies implicit in horrific crimes for well over half a century. This is a sad addition to the story and a tribute to a truth seeker that has risked all for over seven years to see justice done.
by Dee McLachlan
I was in the middle of a workshop in Melbourne yesterday when I got a call from my courageous and admired friend, Rachel Vaughan. She just said, “They’re jack-hammering up the concrete.”
That was all I needed to hear, to realize that a potentially major crime scene was being tampered with. Rachel said that she was heading the 75-kilometre journey north to Adelaide, to see what was going on.
For international readers that are unfamiliar with Rachel’s story, she has for about a decade being telling authorities and many others about her father’s, Max MacIntyre, murderous ways — and how he sexually abused and tortured her as a child. She gave a detailed account to the International Tribunal for Natural Justice, and the Youtube can be viewed here. (Note: Two other step-siblings speak of similar abuses.)
It was almost eight years ago, on 19 January 2012, that Rachel had phoned Crimestoppers and was put through to someone at Major Crime. Rachel detailed her information about the Geising family that lived in the nearby street from Macklin Street where she grew up. (Raymond Geising was the first man to be convicted of Louise Bell’s murder, but was he was exonerated in 1985.)
She then told Crimestoppers that she remembered when she was a ten-year-old seeing a girl’s body, she believed to be Louise Bell — being buried in the back of their garden, and then covered over with a concrete slab.
Rachel was given the name of the officer in charge of the Bell case. She then informed Major Crime and SCIB of the new evidence, handing a statutory declaration to SAPOL on 20 January 2012.
On 23 February 2012, Rachel wrote a letter to SCIB asking a series of questions as to why certain people hadn’t been spoken to, and again reiterating that “Louise Bell’s remains are interred under a slab of concrete at Macklin Street.”
On 7 July 2012, Rachel had a phone call with Major Crime Detectives at 9 pm; this was a Saturday night. Both detectives apparently tried very hard to convince Rachel that the girl she saw was not Louise Bell. Rachel noted that they said this several times.
Det #1 – “..I’m not sure who the girl was that you saw, but I can assure you it was not Louise Bell.”
Det #2 – “Look Rachel, we can’t tell you why we’re sure that the girl you saw wasn’t Louise Bell, but we are sure that it wasn’t Louise Bell.”, and
Det #1 – “…, we can’t tell you why we know it’s not Louise Bell, we just know it’s not her.”
But hang on, no one knew where Louise’s body was. So how did they detectives know, emphatically, that it was not her (but must be someone else)?
Note: even though the detectives claimed it wasn’t Louise Bell, they should have done an immediate investigation into the possibility that another young female, that looked very much like Louise Bell, was buried under concrete in the backyard of Rachel’s childhood family home. In other words, the detectives should have immediately actioned an excavation of the yard.
Why did they not?
In some instances, the police begin immediate excavations as they did earlier this year. The news reported that as a result of a kid noticing something in a back yard in Adelaide, this led to an excavation team digging up a rental property to find some animal remains (I think they were).
So, after Rachel’s statement, one would expect the police to at least visit the property and do a preliminary investigation.
It is highly suspicious that Police were focused on trying to dissuade Rachel — and then do NOTHING. The inaction by police can be seen to strengthen’s Rachel’s case — especially as she had identified — by name — a police person whom she saw present when her father buried the remains.
Interestingly, the two detectives who called Rachel on that Saturday night were the same two detectives who then went after and secured the conviction against Dieter Pfennig.
I have spent many hours (and days) filming Rachel’s detailed accounts. She is meticulous about details, and these details never change. She recounted exactly how Louise was laid down, that sand was sprinkled over her and how the two men took about an hour to lay the concrete slab. That was 35 years ago.
Anything could have happened in that time. I had considered that maybe the body had been removed later (as it was near the edge of the concrete slab).
However, there is a very interesting part to Rachel’s testimony. The images of Louise Bell in the media in 1983 were of a girl with long dark hair.
But Rachel, when she had spoken to and provided statements to the police, had described a girl with shorter sun-bleached hair.
It was only a short time after her statement to the police that new never-seen-before images were released by mainstream media of photographs of Louise Bell at a public pool with short straw-coloured hair.
Rachel had described Louise exactly, before having any knowledge of what Louise looked like shortly before her disappearance.
There is much more to the story, but I will make a note that as a ten-year-old Rachel went to a call box three times back in 1983 to try alert authorities that her father had a girl under the house. It came to naught. Her father, Max, had powerful friends.
But back to yesterday.
The new owners were jack-hammering the concrete and loading it in a skip.
Rachel and some supporters arrived. The new owners know the history of their house and are aware of Rachel. When Rachel asked if she could just go and see, the owners flatly refused, saying, “we haven’t finished yet.”
After a while as Rachel and the others were about to leave, the police arrived. They did not go into the house but came straight up to Rachel, who was already in her car with her indicator on, to turn onto the street. Rachel said, “The police car cut off my egress and flashed his lights to indicate he wanted to speak to me.” After a brief discussion, told me to leave and not return to the area for 24 hours.
Well, no one wants Rachel around. Her accounts dig into the heart of the corruption in South Australia. But the longer authorities ignore her accounts, the more implicated they become. I am reminded by a maxim, Lex dilationes semper exhorre (the law always abhors delay), and how often the avoidance to investigate casts further suspicion.
Now we might not know who was buried under that concrete. Maybe they removed her body (earlier) and will now miraculously find Louise Bell’s remains somewhere else — maybe down near the Onkaparinga river – to further incriminate Pfennig.
Well, we know what’s going on, but, as the detective said, “I can’t tell you why”. It seems the distraction and inaction with regard to Rachel’s case is not weakening, but rather strengthening her case.