Latest news with #Beaumont
9 News
a day ago
- 9 News
New information emerges decades after disappearance of Beaumont children
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here More than half a century after the disappearance of the Beaumont children from Glenelg Beach, new information has surfaced, prompting renewed focus on one of Australia's most enduring mysteries. The disappearance of Jane, Arna, and Grant Beaumont on Australia Day in 1966 remains unsolved and their remains have never been recovered. A private investigator, Bill Hayes, a former South Australian Major Crime Detective, has revealed that a new witness has come forward following a recent search at a North Plympton site. The disappearance of Jane, Arna, and Grant Beaumont on Australia Day in 1966 remains unsolved. (Nine) This site was once owned by factory boss Harry Phipps, who has been a suspect in the abduction. While the dig yielded no physical evidence, it spurred a woman to share her account. The woman alleges she was abused by Phipps, an associate of her family, and that he had made claims to others about the children being buried at the old factory site. "It was extremely distressing, it still is," Hayes said. The new information, detailed in an update to a book about the Beaumont case authored by Hayes and Stuart Mullins, is considered credible by the two authors, who say the woman passed a lie detector test. Bill Hayes. (Nine) "You knew she wasn't making it up, you cannot make something up like she was telling us," Mullins said. The recent search at the North Plympton site was organised by Hayes and author Stuart Mullins. Despite previous police digs at the location in 2013 and 2018 also proving fruitless, Mullins still believes that's where the children are. "We still believe they were buried there… and it's like as Bill said, where we were digging, you could only be 30 centimetres off," he said. While further digs at the Castalloy Factory are not possible due to plans for a housing development, investigators say their search for the truth continues elsewhere. This article was produced with the assistance of 9ExPress . 9ExPress Adelaide South Australia CONTACT US Auto news: Why Australians are still driving around without insurance.
Yahoo
21-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Advisor Team with Nearly $500 Million Joins Ameriprise Financial For Client-Focused Culture
The father-son, father-daughter team joins Q5 Wealth Management, an established Ameriprise practice MINNEAPOLIS, July 21, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Financial advisors Chuck Heare, Ross Heare, CFP®, Tommy Goth and Jennifer Goth-Castillo, recently joined the independent channel of Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (NYSE: AMP) from UBS Financial Services, Inc. in Beaumont, Texas managing over $480 million in client assets. The team – comprised of father-son and father-daughter duos – was formerly known as Goth Heare Wealth Management Group. They join Q5 Wealth Management, an established Ameriprise practice led by managing partners Omar Bitar, Jeremy Saba, Mike Persia, Ed Persia, APMA™, and Brad Klein. Q5 transitioned their practice from UBS to Ameriprise in 2024. The two teams worked closely at UBS for many years before Q5 Wealth Management moved to Ameriprise last year. Soon after Q5's transition, the Goth Heare Wealth Management Group reached out to learn more about their move and it quickly became clear they needed to join forces at Ameriprise. The team cited several factors that drew them to Ameriprise and Q5 Wealth Management: Client-First Culture: "We were looking for a firm and team that prioritizes clients above all else and is not encumbered by the traditional Wall Street investment bank or wirehouse culture," said Ross Heare. "At Ameriprise, the firm's client-centric philosophy, integrated technology, and depth of resources helps us truly focus on serving our clients and put their needs first." Freedom To Build Out Support Model: "The ability to easily employ support staff was also a big draw for us," said Tommy Goth. "We now have the autonomy to build a team and service model that's tailored to our clients' needs – allowing us to deliver a more consistent and efficient client experience." Shared Values: "We've known Omar, Jeremy, Mike, Ed and Brad for years, and we share very similar values, starting with a deep commitment to serving clients," said Chuck Heare. The transition to Ameriprise and Q5 is off to a strong start. "The feedback from our clients has been overwhelmingly positive," added Jennifer Goth-Castillo. "We're excited about the future and what we can build together at Ameriprise and Q5 Wealth Management." Tiffany Barber, client service assistant, also made the transition to Q5 with the Goth Heare Wealth Management Group. Growth of Q5 Wealth Management Less than a year after joining Ameriprise with an eye towards growth, Q5 Wealth Management has expanded significantly – adding six financial advisors to the practice. In addition to the recent arrival of the Goth Heare Wealth Management Group, the team has welcomed Scott Guptill, who came on board with $100 million in client assets from Morgan Stanley and Kurtis Bell, who joined from LPL Financial with $25 million in client assets. Today, Q5 Wealth Management includes 11 financial advisors and 7 support staff who manage over $1.9 billion in client assets. "Ameriprise has been incredibly supportive in our ambitious goals to grow our practice and ultimately bring more value to the clients we serve," said Omar Bitar, financial advisor and managing partner of Q5 Wealth Management. "The firm's integrated technology capabilities, vast product lineup and supportive leadership structure have made it possible for us run a thriving practice that's centered on creating an incredible experience for both advisors and clients." The team is supported locally by Ameriprise Franchise Field Vice President Logan Clipp and Ameriprise Regional Vice President Tres Rouquette. Ameriprise has continued to attract experienced, productive financial advisors, with approximately 1,700 joining the firm in the last 5 years.1 To find out why experienced financial advisors are joining Ameriprise, visit About the Ameriprise Ultimate Advisor Partnership The Ameriprise Ultimate Advisor Partnership offers a differentiated experience for advisors that helps them accelerate growth while delivering an excellent client experience. Combined with the company's culture of support and independence, the Ultimate Advisor Partnership enables advisors to scale their businesses, deepen client relationships and drive referrals for future growth. About Ameriprise Financial At Ameriprise Financial, we have been helping people feel confident about their financial future for more than 130 years2. With extensive investment advice, global asset management capabilities and insurance solutions, and a nationwide network of more than 10,000 financial advisors, we have the strength and expertise to serve the full range of individual and institutional investors' financial needs. 1 Ameriprise Financial Q4 2024 Earnings Release. 2 Company founded June 29, 1894 Ameriprise Financial cannot guarantee future financial results. Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. (CFP Board) owns the CFP® certification mark, the CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ certification mark, and the CFP® certification mark (with plaque design) logo in the United States, which it authorizes use of by individuals who successfully complete CFP Board's initial and ongoing certification requirements. Investment products are not insured by the FDIC, NCUA or any federal agency, are not deposits or obligations of, or guaranteed by any financial institution, and involve investment risks including possible loss of principal and fluctuation in value. Investment advisory products and services are made available through Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC, a registered investment adviser. Securities offered by Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC. Member FINRA and SIPC. ©2025 Ameriprise Financial, Inc. All rights reserved. View source version on Contacts Allison Harries, Media Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hindu
20-07-2025
- Sport
- The Hindu
ENG-W vs IND-W, 2nd ODI: Why was Tammy Beaumont not given out obstructing the field during the second ODI?
There was another moment of controversy during an encounter at Lord's between England and India on Saturday when opener Tammy Beaumont was ruled not out for obstructing the field. The incident took place during the fifth over of England's chase of 144. Beaumont worked a delivery by Deepti Sharma into the leg-side, where it was fielded by Jemimah Rodrigues at mid-wicket. Beaumont, who had set off for a single, retreated into her crease and then appeared to kick out at Rodrigues' attempt to hit the stumps at her end. Rodrigues and wicketkeeper Richa Ghosh immediately appeared to remonstrate with the umpires over Beaumont's kick out. On-field umpires Rob White and Anna Harris conferred and sent the matter to the TV umpire Jacqueline Williams to determine whether Beaumont should be given out for obstructing the field. Williams observed the replays, and decided that Beaumont had made her ground and was not attempting to obstruct the field, ruling it not out. The rule 37.1.1 of the playing conditions states that, 'Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of clause 37.2, and while the ball is in play, she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.' The incident marks another controversial incident between the two sides in an ODI at Lord's. The meeting between the pair in 2022 was marked by the infamous run out of England's Charlie Dean at the non-striker's end by Deepti Sharma to win the game for India.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
20-07-2025
- Sport
- First Post
Explained: The obstruction appeal controversy from India vs England Women 2nd ODI and what the law says
Controversy erupted in the second ODI between India and England Women after the Harmanpreet Kaur-led side appealed for obstructing the field against Tammy Beaumont. read more The second ODI between India and England Women that took place at the Lord's became a subject of massive controversy after Harmanpreet Kaur-led side appealed for Obstructing the Field against Tammmy Beaumont. While it certainly appeared that India had a case, the third umpire reached a different conclusion after going through the replays. As a result, the England opener survived and crafted a solid opening stand of 54 runs with Amy Jones, which perfectly set up the 116-run chase in a rain-affected game. Eventually, England won the game by 8 wickets and brought the series level at 1-1. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The match did not offer much when it comes to the contest between bat and ball, but still made headlines owing to the field obstruction incident. The odd episode transpired during the 4th over of the England chase. On the fifth delivery bowled by Deepti Sharma, Tammy Beaumont came down the track, playing a flick to mid-wicket. More from First Cricket Team India selectors make course correction as Anshul Kamboj reportedly picked ahead of Harshit Rana as pace back-up India's appeal turned down by the third umpire As the ball was collected by fielder Jemimah Rodrigues, who sent it back to the striker's end. However, the visiting team appealed for obstruction of the field. The Indian team believed the England batter deliberately blocked the throw. Paying heed to the appeal, the on-field umpires consulted each other before sending the decision to the third umpire for review. Replays indicated that wicketkeeper Richa Ghosh failed to collect the ball. At the same time, England batter Beaumont had positioned her foot in the crease as the throw was coming toward Ghosh. Notably, Beaumont's left foot was grounded inside the crease when she moved her right leg. The ball ended up hitting Beaumont's pad, which prompted Ghosh to appeal for obstructing the field. After taking a good look at the replays, the third umpire came to the decision that it was not out. Following the culmination of the game, India batter Smriti Mandhana expressed her thoughts on the incident. 'I was not in a really good angle, to be fair, probably it was not visible at all. Jemmi definitely felt that maybe she kicked it or something. They referred it, and it was not out, so I'm sure that they should have seen all the angles. That's the only view I have on it,' Mandhana told reporters. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'But I was in no angle, to be fair, to see what happened. At mid-on, you don't see what exactly happened from that way. So, not being diplomatic, but genuinely, I did not see it,' she added. What does the law say? According to the game's laws, being back in the crease doesn't exempt a batter from being given out for obstructing the field. The ball was still in play, so it wasn't considered dead. However, laws specify a batter won't be out if the obstruction was accidental or done to avoid injury. 37.1.1 in MCC's law book states, 'Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, and while the ball is in play, he/she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.' 37.1.2 states, 'The striker is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, in the act of receiving a ball delivered by the bowler, he/she wilfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat. This will apply whether it is the first strike or a second or subsequent strike. The act of receiving the ball shall extend both to playing at the ball and to striking the ball more than once in defence of his/her wicket.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The incident that took place in the second ODI between India and England Women brought back the memories of the famous dismissals of Yusuf Pathan from IPL 2013 and Inzamam-ul-Haq from India's 2005/06 tour of Pakistan.
India Today
20-07-2025
- Sport
- India Today
Why was Tammy Beaumont not given out Obstructing the Field in Lord's ODI: Explained
Tammy Beaumont was involved in a controversial moment during the second Women's ODI between India and England on Saturday, July 19, at Lord's. In the fifth over of England's run chase, Deepti Sharma bowled around the off stump, and Beaumont clipped the ball to mid-wicket, where Jemimah Rodrigues was reacted quickly, firing a sharp throw toward the striker's end. As the ball deflected off Beaumont's pad, she appeared to already be within her crease, moving her right leg forward. Though the throw didn't hit the stumps, wicketkeeper Richa Ghosh appealed for an Obstructing the Field VS IND-W 2ND ODI HIGHLIGHTS On-field umpires Rob White and Anna Harris conferred before referring the decision to the third umpire. After a close review, Jacqueline Williams ruled Beaumont not out, determining she was simply attempting to regain her the time, Beaumont was on 25 off 17 balls. She went on to score 34 from 35 deliveries, hitting five fours, before falling to Sneh Rana. England ultimately won the rain-curtailed match by eight wickets, chasing down 115 in just 21 overs to level the three-match series was Beaumont truly in the clear, or did she get a lucky break?Here's the MCC law on Obstructing the Field37.1 Out Obstructing the field37.1.1 Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, and while the ball is in play, he/she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. See also Law 34 (Hit the ball twice).37.1.2 The striker is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, in the act of receiving a ball delivered by the bowler, he/she wilfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat. This will apply whether it is the first strike or a second or subsequent strike. The act of receiving the ball shall extend both to playing at the ball and to striking the ball more than once in defence of his/her wicket.37.1.3 This Law will apply whether or not No ball is called.37.2 Not out Obstructing the fieldA batter shall not be out Obstructing the field if the obstruction or distraction is accidental,or the obstruction is in order to avoid injury,or in the case of the striker, he/she makes a second or subsequent strike to guard his/her wicket lawfully as in Law 34.3 (Ball lawfully struck more than once).- Ends
