Australia Australia - Marion Barter, 51, missing after trip to UK, June 1997 #14

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Peralta said:
Attached are Marion's passenger cards. Left is out of Aus. Right is into Aus.

Both signatures looks like 'FN Remakel' and indicates how the name is intended to be used. Very interesting that Marion does not have a middle name yet middle initial is used in both cases, but never the M.

To me, the passenger cards appear to have the same handwriting.
The narrative about the passenger also matches - they are not wildly different or conflicting stories.

We can't say for sure it's Marion's handwriting, although SL and expert said it is likely and possible.

Writing samples previously posted indicate Marion had several handwriting styles (as many of us do) and some look very different to this!
So if Marion did not write the second card, how did RB know which of her handwriting styles to copy?

If RB wrote the second card, he would have also written the first. IMO.
So that means he needed to be in Aus with her during her departure OR he filled them out in advance.

However, I do believe Marion wrote the first card as she was unsure how to capture where she was going to live (Europe corrected to Luxembourg), and where she was disembarking (England corrected to South Korea). RB would've known exactly what to write as he travels a lot and it is a planned grift. No errors! IMO

The one thing we can discount is Marion returning because she was suspicious of RB.
Because then she would not need to continue the 'Luxembourg housewife visiting Aus for 8 days' charade in incoming card.

My conclusion on the passenger cards, IMO:
The cards were written by the same person.
Marion wrote the first.
When Marion returned to Australia, she was still being coerced by RB.

If there is a chance he wrote BOTH cards in advance, that means he always intended to return early and leave her in the UK. So that rules out something going wrong with accessing Barclays money <- <- <- o_O So why change her name?! Argh.
Click to expand...
Those signatures look different to me. The first ones looks like someone has had to think about how they are signing, which would make sense if you had just changed your name and are only just coming to learn a new signature.

that second one looks more fluent, like someone has been signing it like that for a while.

moo
 
Penguinpoet said:
I was thinking about this too. It would be even more disorienting if he took JO and MB to a country in Europe where they can't speak the language, where they might have difficulty trying to book a return flight to Australia (or even trying to speak to police), which makes me think there is a very specific reason for choosing England (although I don't know what that is!).
Click to expand...

I agree. There is something specific to the UK - and in fact that region of the UK - that he is habitually working with.
 
If anyone is interested in why I think cards were written by same person, here are just a few examples:

A - Both are 'square' with a down stoke before the typical triangular shape. Except when writing Australia - those are purely triangular.
Australia - same on both cards.
L - both use bottom hump stroke and end in upward flick.
E in Florabella - really indicate a similar flow of the hand when surrounded by those particular letters as opposed to other E's.
3 - both use angular top half, a middle downward spike like a cursive z, and rounded bottom half. Other people might make the entire 3 rounded.
10 - same on both cards.
4 - same on both cards.
Q in QLD - same on both cards.
Ticks - same small spike and long flick.

Signatures are different. If Marion wrote the cards, it makes sense they're different because it's a new name and signature.

If RB wrote only the second card, why go to the trouble of mimicking the handwriting but not the signature? (I just can't find a way to make sense that they're written by different people).

Edit: Yes, a few things were clearly written by a different person such as customs staff checking and correcting the form. This have been discussed extensively, even at inquest:
Card #1 - Europe Luxembourg and England South Korea
Card #2 - Passport number and married tick.
 

Attachments

  • FNR Passenger Cards.png
    FNR Passenger Cards.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 32
Last edited by a moderator:
KiwiNZ said:
they cant snip what you claim to have lost - if lost they cancel it so you can fly on it but it is still perfectly good to use as ID

If I remember correctly RB did the same and claimed to have lost a passport at some stage when applying for a new name ( cant remember the exact situation sorry )
Click to expand...

Exactly. Probably can't fly on a 'lost' or 'cancelled' passport or on a newly issued passport in a name that doesn't connect to your other identify proof -but- can certainly probably use them as a basis to provide ID for:

- checking in hotels
- renting vehicles
- renting / subletting a house - apartment - room
- opening new bank accounts
- taking store credit agreements
- hire purchase
- showing as ID at pawn shops
- instant cash loans from brokers
etc.

Also can sell the passport itself for cash if it's authentic, still in date.
.
One of RB's clear 'tells' came out in the Inquiry when

a) he described in detail how passport cover is chopped by the Post Office - RB does not give information except to obfuscate, so why mention this?;

b) he used his frequent form of evasion / challenging to deflect which is 'why would anyone do that?', 'what would the point of that be?' type talk. Well, from a criminal point of view, there are thousands of reasons RB, let's be clear on that.
.
 
Peralta said:
If anyone is interested in why I think cards were written by same person, here are just a few examples:

A - Both are 'square' with a down stoke before the typical triangular shape. Except when writing Australia - those are purely triangular.
Australia - same on both cards.
L - both use bottom hump stroke and end in upward flick.
E in Florabella - really indicate a similar flow of the hand when surrounded by those particular letters as opposed to other E's.
3 - both use angular top half, a middle downward spike like a cursive z, and rounded bottom half. Other people might make the entire 3 rounded.
10 - same on both cards.
4 - same on both cards.
Q in QLD - same on both cards.
Ticks - most are the same, small spike and long flick.

If Marion wrote the cards, it makes sense the signatures are different because it's a new name and signature.

If RB wrote only the second card, why go to the trouble of mimicking the handwriting but not the signature? (I just can't find a way to make sense that they're written by different people)

If RB wrote both at the same time, then why not use the same signature?
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the block capital writing on both cards it appears to be the same hand.

However, there is no similarity between the signature on the first one and the second - the '2's are written completely differently and so is the signature. There is something in this. Also, I wonder why Europe is crossed out?

I believe RB filled out the cards and he wrote the Luxembourg story to fit in with the fact that he was faking the real FN Remakel's identity. Marion wouldn't have known that. Marion hadn't mentioned anything about Luxembourg or wanting to go there to anyone had she? Therefore the Luxembourg bits in all of this is the biggest shout out to those bits being RB's involvement. He was hoping, that when all is done and dusted, the police would concentrate on trying to work out a connection between Marion and the Real FN Remakel of Luxembourg and not a soul would be looking for him.

I suppose he would have assumed his former Remakel identity was dead and buried and wouldn't turn up. The finding of the old ad in Le Courier Australien is honestly remarkable luck and genius work of sleuth here.
.
RB is a Narc and a gambler IMO. He thinks he's beating the system when it comes to figuring out how to playing various mechanisms. He just wants the 'big wins' and ego boost. His failure to care about the cost to human life in that elevates him up a notch to something more sinister maybe.
 
KateM said:
I thought it was a bit odd that Marion applied for an international drivers licence, as the rail system and buses are fantastic in the UK, and most travellers wouldn't bother, unless they were going to hire a van and drive around Europe.
Click to expand...
Yeah and you didn’t need an international license to drive around UK or many other European countries. My family and friends hired cars in UK, Ireland, Italy, Austria, USA and other places just with our Australian licenses (more than once with name discrepancies of some kind, sometimes with a stat dec to explain them)

sounds like maybe the international license was more for use as a form of ID for other purposes… ?
 
Peralta said:
If RB wrote only the second card, why go to the trouble of mimicking the handwriting but not the signature? (I just can't find a way to make sense that they're written by different people).
Click to expand...

OK my answer, hypothesis, to this one is :

RB wrote them both out in his usual block capital handwriting? (we will need to know what his usual block capital handwriting looks like).

He wrote the information on both out but he did not go so far as to sign the date and signature because he handed them to two different people who did that bit themselves.

- or - he said 'you sign it and I'll fill the detail'

Marion signed her new signature on the way out of Aus.

Another woman signed a signature that is not hers on the way into Aus.

The only bit he wanted to control and be sure of was the information. He didn't care too much if the signatures mis-matched. Also the signatures, by rights should both match the one inside the passport.

What woman was RB bringing into Aus? An accomplice? His wife - had she flown out to the UK on any name, maybe she is a woman of many passports too?

Or was she simply an unlawful immigrant to whom he had sold on the passport?

Is that why he wants to go to a particular place in the UK? To set someone he knows of up with an entry passport into Aus?
 
Peralta said:
Apologies if my brief post confused anyone.

This is why I typically write long 'explanatory' posts to try to include everyone and so the context can't be misunderstood. I understand there are people here from different backgrounds and neurodiversity (myself included)... some are quick and experienced at connecting abstract dots, and others prefer a detailed narrative of exactly what you're trying to say. Neither is better than the other, just different information processing pathways.

So here we go... Sally said she couldn't see the man's face as it was far and dark. It is unclear if she meant the inside of the car was dark, or the man's face was dark. She thought he looked Mediterranean but it was possible he could've been Algerian. We're not sure if that meant nationality-wise or skin tone. She didn't, at any moment, identify RB as the man in the car. Of course, I personally believe the arts centre man is RB, but unfortunately opinions are not 'fact' or 'proof', and Tootsie suggested 'solid proof ' was necessary to link them in the UK, which is a fair point.

I was just trying to say that if we discount the UK evidence due to lack of 'solid proof', we'd need to discount the Aus evidence too, because they are both relying on circumstantial evidence - "pointing indirectly towards someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it."

Whereas 'solid proof', as Tootsie suggested, typically requires being ID'd by a reliable witness, caught on CCTV, having a digital trail of two people being at the same place at the same time, DNA, etc. The problem with having 'solid proof' is that it tends to be digital, and in Marion's case, the world wasn't fully digital yet.

That's all I meant... the realisation that there's no 'solid proof' of them being together in the UK or in Aus, and that sincerely made me put this face on in real life :confused: Yet I posted straight after, that I DO think there's LOADS of circumstantial evidence to make a reasonable inferrence.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation! I totally understand and agree. Forensic proof I suppose I'd call it. I am also not neuro typical and this can cause some (lots of) misunderstandings and the need for explanations.
 
Observe_dont_Absorb said:
OK my answer, hypothesis, to this one is :

RB wrote them both out in his usual block capital handwriting? (we will need to know what his usual block capital handwriting looks like).

He wrote the information on both out but he did not go so far as to sign the date and signature because he handed them to two different people who did that bit themselves.

- or - he said 'you sign it and I'll fill the detail'

Marion signed her new signature on the way out of Aus.

Another woman signed a signature that is not hers on the way into Aus.

The only bit he wanted to control and be sure of was the information. He didn't care too much if the signatures mis-matched. Also the signatures, by rights should both match the one inside the passport.

What woman was RB bringing into Aus? An accomplice? His wife - had she flown out to the UK on any name, maybe she is a woman of many passports too?

Or was she simply an unlawful immigrant to whom he had sold on the passport?

Is that why he wants to go to a particular place in the UK? To set someone he knows of up with an entry passport into Aus?
Click to expand...
Good points and I like the reasoning. If anyone has suspicions at immigration about false papers/ forgeries, they would probably the person to do a few signatures for comparison, so it makes sense to leave that to the person travelling so that the signatures match.
 
Observe_dont_Absorb said:
I agree with you about the block capital writing on both cards it appears to be the same hand.

However, there is no similarity between the signature on the first one and the second - the '2's are written completely differently and so is the signature. There is something in this. Also, I wonder why Europe is crossed out?

I believe RB filled out the cards and he wrote the Luxembourg story to fit in with the fact that he was faking the real FN Remakel's identity. Marion wouldn't have known that. Marion hadn't mentioned anything about Luxembourg or wanting to go there to anyone had she? Therefore the Luxembourg bits in all of this is the biggest shout out to those bits being RB's involvement. He was hoping, that when all is done and dusted, the police would concentrate on trying to work out a connection between Marion and the Real FN Remakel of Luxembourg and not a soul would be looking for him.

I suppose he would have assumed his former Remakel identity was dead and buried and wouldn't turn up. The finding of the old ad in Le Courier Australien is honestly remarkable luck and genius work of sleuth here.
.
RB is a Narc and a gambler IMO. He thinks he's beating the system when it comes to figuring out how to playing various mechanisms. He just wants the 'big wins' and ego boost. His failure to care about the cost to human life in that elevates him up a notch to something more sinister maybe.
Click to expand...

The 2 in the dates are not completely different. Yes, card#1 has large lower loops whereas card#2 does not. But BOTH have a very short top that starts more to the right than most people's 2, no? I can forgive the loops as sometimes I have extra loopy writing, other times I don't. It depends on the pen, how tired I am, how much time I have and if I'm feeling fancy.

Yes, a few things were clearly written by a different person such as customs staff checking and correcting the form. This was discussed at inquest:
Card #1 - Europe Luxembourg and England South Korea
Card #2 - Passport number and married tick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KateM said:
Having travelled to England and Europe and lived in the UK, most travellers go to London first and use it as a base. Not many people would go directly to Tunbridge Wells. I still think that RB was with her, or met up with her at Tunbridge Wells.
Click to expand...

Yes, maybe he was with her during the 'shop til you drop' phase?

What WAS Marion purchasing and why? She's a tourist on the other side of the world who has already brought too much luggage with her and is intending to go on the Orient Express shortly (ie not intending to acquire even more 'stuff').

What on earth would she wish to purchase? Is this the romantic 'grooming' phase by RB?

Did they maybe go looking at antiques, furniture, wallpaper? Interior design and art galleries?

Did he buy her some perfume, underwear, and jewellery? Maybe on a fake identity credit card or using stolen travel cheques?
 
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 118 more.
Total: 1,908 (members: 119, guests: 1,789)

Online statistics

Members online
119
Guests online
1,789
Total visitors
1,908
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,033
Messages
18,197,258
Members
233,713
Latest member
Jzouzie
Back
Top