I think there is a possibility that the podcast team found a substantial lead with the Medicare find and the investigators wanted it investigated properly before releasing the information to the public. The journalists broadcast it without consulting the investigators, the investigators weren’t happy about this and made them retract it. This is the only way I can make sense of this. It was such a specific statement, which makes it really hard to believe that they were mistaken. All IMO.
Australia Australia - Marion Barter, 51, missing after trip to UK, Jun 1997 #3
- Thread starter inkpink
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
Housemartyn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2020
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 1,163
Housemartyn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2020
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 1,163
Absolutely it does.
IMHO it does tie some very loose ends up. But I guess we will have to wait and see.
Very sad if Marion decided to take herself off like that. But a terminal diagnosis does dire things to people.
I think Sally mentioned that they did have information that they couldn't release yet.
IMHO it does tie some very loose ends up. But I guess we will have to wait and see.
Very sad if Marion decided to take herself off like that. But a terminal diagnosis does dire things to people.
I think Sally mentioned that they did have information that they couldn't release yet.
I know that I shouldn’t be focusing on a statement that has been declared a mistake, but this scenario is the first that actually makes sense to me in this case. I’m building on everyone’s ideas here, but what if Marion received a diagnosis, decided to seek alternative care and used the ruse of a prolonged trip to the UK to receive this treatment without her family trying to convince her otherwise? She seems like such a spiritual lady, it seems entirely plausible to me that she could be interested in alternative therapies. Maybe she always planned to come back to Australia soon after a brief holiday in the UK, or maybe the treatment was supposed to happen in the UK but she had to come back for some other pressing business. If she died in the care of a alternative care provider/healer type person, or was being cared for in some kind of cult, they couldn’t really report her death without facing possible investigations or charges themselves, could they? The Twelve Tribes baby deaths are an example of this. This particular tribe didn’t trust or use standard medical care and as a result, the death of at least one baby was not reported and they were buried, presumably by the tribespeople, with no authorities ever alerted.
Some details about the alternative medical care of The Twelve Tribes:
What drove religious elder to leave controversial cult
The details of the current investigation into the deaths of babies:
Police 'find body of at least one baby' at Twelve Tribes religious sect headquarters | Daily Mail Online
I’m not saying that this is 100% what happened to Marion and that she joined the Twelve Tribes. It could have been a different organisation or individual treating her. Just that IMO, this is a plausible scenario where all the puzzle pieces seem to fit. The strange behaviour before she left, the brief trip to the UK, selling her house, changing her name (it sounds like such an alternative/cult-like name), quitting her job, the bank withdrawals in a strange location (maybe she needed more money than she anticipated?) and the effort she went to so that it would be hard to find her. The pieces just fit when thinking about this theory.
Some details about the alternative medical care of The Twelve Tribes:
What drove religious elder to leave controversial cult
The details of the current investigation into the deaths of babies:
Police 'find body of at least one baby' at Twelve Tribes religious sect headquarters | Daily Mail Online
I’m not saying that this is 100% what happened to Marion and that she joined the Twelve Tribes. It could have been a different organisation or individual treating her. Just that IMO, this is a plausible scenario where all the puzzle pieces seem to fit. The strange behaviour before she left, the brief trip to the UK, selling her house, changing her name (it sounds like such an alternative/cult-like name), quitting her job, the bank withdrawals in a strange location (maybe she needed more money than she anticipated?) and the effort she went to so that it would be hard to find her. The pieces just fit when thinking about this theory.
I can understand someone making a mistake in interpreting a medical code, but what I find really weird is that they also were wrong about the date of the doctor visit. Makes me wonder if these are medical records they have in-hand (which you’d expect they were reporting more carefully) or are records someone is telling them about, but that they haven’t actually seen.
Do investigators have the authority to make them retract it? I wonder if someone leaked it to them (inappropriately) but didn’t expect them to share it publicly.
That makes sense if they were only told about the records but didn’t actually sight them. I also found it interesting that in the podcast, from memory, the statement about the tumour was not discussed with Sally and we didn’t hear Sally’s thoughts. That struck me as odd for such a big claim. Then it was suddenly redacted. Sally might have told them in confidence and it was never supposed to be aired?
I have no idea if they have the authority. Maybe the journalists complied with the request so that they didn’t hinder the investigation further? I agree with you on the leaked information theory. I’m thinking along similar lines.
Housemartyn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2020
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 1,163
Sally said on the Facebook page that all she had were the Medicare receipts. Although we haven't seen a copy of those as yet. She said they don't have access to Marion's medical records - which would make sense. Maybe they are trying somehow to access them although I don't know how that would be possible. It still doesn't explain how those specific details of a 5cm tumour Alison spoke about were 'not correct' or 'a mistake'. It's absolutely baffling.
D
Deleted member 249471
Guest
I have only heard the redacted version. Can someone recap what the original said?
Probably not but Sally has said that she wants to be very careful to follow LE's wishes in terms of what info gets released so I'd say they'd happily redact anything that LE didn't want in the public domain.
This all feels like it's making sense to me too. It's always felt like someone was exploiting Marion for her money in some way - doesn't have to be a love interest doing so, it could have been an unethical alternative medical facility.
So, the long ago mentioned LA magazine thing.... What if Marion/Florabella had placed a classified ad in some kind of US publication seeking treatment/help for her condition (granted we don't even know at this point if she was really sick, this is me just theorising)? LA feels like a good place to start when seeking out new age cancer treatments. Close to Mexico too which is renowned for such facilities. Maybe it was a published letter to a publication seeking help? I can't quite grasp what it would be but I'm just thinking along the lines of Marion seeking/finding alternative therapies for cancer - matched up somehow with a publication in an LA library - and how those two things could fit together.
How could one go about finding out which facilities were operating in various countries at that time? And in pre-internet days how would a prospective patient like Marion find out about the facilities. Word of mouth? Did they advertise in magazines, newspapers, classifieds? Definitely an interesting path to look into.
This is purely from memory since I have no record of the original statement, but it said something like, “We have found that the Medicare records state that the appointment was in regards to a rectal tumour larger than 5cm”.
That’s not verbatim and is probably not 100% accurate. If anyone remembers it differently and can add corrections, please do.
Housemartyn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2020
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 1,163
Who is LE?
D
Deleted member 249471
Guest
Thanks Loxoli 
What appointment though? Were they suggesting it was the one after returning from the UK, the one in Grafton?
What appointment though? Were they suggesting it was the one after returning from the UK, the one in Grafton?
D
Deleted member 249471
Guest
Law enforcement.
Housemartyn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2020
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 1,163
The appointment prior to her departure for England in April '97Thanks Loxoli
D
Deleted member 249471
Guest
I agree, there is probably more to this redacted tumour reveal.
Coroners and police are very particular about NOT releasing medical reports or conditions when not directly relevant to the case.
If relevant, they'll inform family but otherwise it's not available to public as medical info is private whether a person is dead, missing or alive and well.
It is also highly unethical for professionals with access to medical records to release patient information.
If the tumour is true, there are two ways I can think of it getting in the hands of the podcast:
1. It was found during the coroners investigation and Sally was asked if she knew about it.
2. Someone with current access to historical medical records told them.
As a person interested in this case, I want to know every detail.
As a decent human being, I can see how this should've remained private, especially as it didn't advance the investigation in any way.
Had the podcast revealed a confidential medical condition, with in-depth research, that actually helped find Marion or what happened to her, that may have been acceptable. But in this instance, it was used as an undercooked, quick injection of drama.
Not to mention the irresponsible reporting of suicide, particularly in relation to terminal illness. There are ethics involved in journalism around this.
So yeah, I'm highly questioning Alison, Bryon, and channel seven's integrity.
If the tumour was a mistake, then I'm still questioning their integrity and suitability for this job
Coroners and police are very particular about NOT releasing medical reports or conditions when not directly relevant to the case.
If relevant, they'll inform family but otherwise it's not available to public as medical info is private whether a person is dead, missing or alive and well.
It is also highly unethical for professionals with access to medical records to release patient information.
If the tumour is true, there are two ways I can think of it getting in the hands of the podcast:
1. It was found during the coroners investigation and Sally was asked if she knew about it.
2. Someone with current access to historical medical records told them.
As a person interested in this case, I want to know every detail.
As a decent human being, I can see how this should've remained private, especially as it didn't advance the investigation in any way.
Had the podcast revealed a confidential medical condition, with in-depth research, that actually helped find Marion or what happened to her, that may have been acceptable. But in this instance, it was used as an undercooked, quick injection of drama.
Not to mention the irresponsible reporting of suicide, particularly in relation to terminal illness. There are ethics involved in journalism around this.
So yeah, I'm highly questioning Alison, Bryon, and channel seven's integrity.
If the tumour was a mistake, then I'm still questioning their integrity and suitability for this job
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 249471
Guest
When I first started hearing about the medical visits before and after UK via Japan, not gonna lie, I suspected she might have been used as a drug mule. Colonoscopy before and after makes sense. Just a thought. Again, this makes as much sense as the cult ones 
- Status