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

[Deleted member 249471]

Can we all agree on this though:

Whoever wrote the outgoing passenger card also wrote the incoming card?

Or could there be another explanation?

Edit: Forgive me, I had a mental lapse and didn't realise the weight of what I was saying. Let me think about this a bit longer.

 

[BonnieB]

Maybe she didn't return, as AKA seemed adamant (i cannot remember exact words) that he had not done anything in "Australia". Maybe the card was filled out beforehand. Good question ... was the date the same handwriting, pen?

Why would anyone believe a word he says? He stole $30k from GGB in Australia, attempted blackmail in Australia, entered Australia on a fraudulent passport, stole jewellery from JO in Australia, obtained his Australian citizenship by fraud...I could go on.

 

[gymtonic]

I agree the postcards were posted when the postmarks say they were but by what means? Did Marion place them in the mail box or was it hotel staff?
Two delayed cards led me to theorize that it seemed Marion had a habit of leaving cards at the hotel desk for postage. I think you will find that I prefaced that statement with "to me", it was not a statement of fact.

Regarding their return to Australia:
I don't believe I said that they flew to Australia together. I said they flew to Narita together, on their way back to Australia.

Ah, OK...so to clarify you are saying (IYO) AKA and MB flew to Tokyo (Narita) together from EU prior to July 31 1997 (because he arrived in Oz on 31 July 1997 so it would have to have been prior to then). AKA flies back in to Oz on 31 July from Tokyo and MB...

• either stays in Tokyo for a couple of days and then flies to Australia via Hong Kong on Cathay Pacific on August 2.
• Or MB flies from Tokyo to Hong Kong and stays there for a few days before flying back to Oz.

Have I got that right?

 

[brjakj]

FNMR passenger card via Hong Kong

Can anyone read the flight number on that? Is it cx103?

 

[KateM]

Ah, OK...so to clarify you are saying (IYO) AKA and MB flew to Tokyo (Narita) together from EU prior to July 31 1997 (because he arrived in Oz on 31 July 1997 so it would have to have been prior to then). AKA flies back in to Oz on 31 July from Tokyo and MB...

• either stays in Tokyo for a couple of days and then flies to Australia via Hong Kong on Cathay Pacific on August 2.
• Or MB flies from Tokyo to Hong Kong and stays there for a few days before flying back to Oz.

Have I got that right?

If this scenario did happen, then we know why AKA wouldn't have travelled back into AUS with MB, but what would he have told her?

 

[Procrastinator]

Why would anyone believe a word he says? He stole $30k from GGB in Australia, attempted blackmail in Australia, entered Australia on a fraudulent passport, stole jewellery from JO in Australia, obtained his Australian citizenship by fraud...I could go on.

Yes to all those crimes and more, I agree you could go on, he is a liar. It was the way how he said it that he had done nothing in Australia. Why say only Australia? Makes me think did something happen in Hong Kong? He's never been back there, or was it Tokyo?

 

[BonnieB]

Ah, OK...so to clarify you are saying (IYO) AKA and MB flew to Tokyo (Narita) together from EU prior to July 31 1997 (because he arrived in Oz on 31 July 1997 so it would have to have been prior to then). AKA flies back in to Oz on 31 July from Tokyo and MB...

• either stays in Tokyo for a couple of days and then flies to Australia via Hong Kong on Cathay Pacific on August 2.
• Or MB flies from Tokyo to Hong Kong and stays there for a few days before flying back to Oz.

Have I got that right?

I'm just putting it out there that 'something' caused RB to cease all travel via JL & Narita after 31st July. There were many questions put to him at the inquest to explain why. He was unable to give any credible answer.
Could RB & MB have traveled from Amsterdam to Narita together and something happened there that could place them together. A MV accident during transfer to the hotel for example.
RB completes his return flight home to Australia.
Marion takes a flight to Australia with a layover in Hong Kong.
Once Marion is deceased, RB, in order to distance himself from potential witnesses in Narita ceases to use that route again. JMO and happy if it can be proved impossible.

 

[Itsapuzzle]

Yes to all those crimes and more, I agree you could go on, he is a liar. It was the way how he said it that he had done nothing in Australia. Why say only Australia? Makes me think did something happen in Hong Kong? He's never been back there, or was it Tokyo?

Yeah, it makes you think, h'mm, did he head back there from Australia on another passport, meet Marion and get married there, hence the big tick in the "married" box? Maybe travelled there on some other name we haven't heard of?

 

[Bagpus]

OK, so now my original post has been corroborated by more than one sleuth and it looks like (as I thought) there was more than 1 piece of correspondence from MB postmarked prior to August 2, this is why I've been confused as to why people are dismissing more than 1 piece of evidence of MB being in the UK after "the FNMR passport" arrived in Oz. One thing I can understand, but 2 postmarked postcards from different places with different postmarks and date, and a phone call experienced by a close family member on a "locked in" (i.e. referenced to a known event being the Thredbo disaster) date? with the substance of the call that she was phoning from TW at a payphone and with no airport background noise? and an UK sleuth demonstrating the Cathay Pacific flight via Hong Kong would have had to have left UK before the phone call and the postcards?

Weigh that against a passport in a largely unknown (to anyone but AKA and MB) name entering Oz, and a dodgy medicare card use, and bank withdrawals - all in the context of a known forger and impersonator.

I have heard the argument that the postcards could also be planting proof of life in the UK BUT...why would the same person do both? If someone is wanting to make it look like MB arrived back by planting proof of life evidence in Oz would the case not be stronger if there was no conflicting "proof of life" in an other country, at the same time, on the other side of the world? And vice versa...but not both. It's only made it more intriguing and likely to be investigated hasn't it?...completely the opposite of what AKA would have wanted?

That's been my reasoning all along and now taking note of @Peralta 's comment about being more explicit about laying it outing in more detail. I thought I had posted something like this way back when someone posted "which camp are you in? MB returned or not?".

That's very interesting.

There's just one thought to add to your reasoning.

It's a question of what was motivating the deception and who was being deceived. I don't think MB wanted to hurt her family, or cause confusion / interference in her plans. It would have been hard to explain her (temporary, as she thought) return to Australia to her family and friends. And how could she, in fact, explain it? She would have had to reveal her relationship with RB, which she had probably promised not to do. She probably had no plans to see family during her brief return either. So the delayed letters and cards may have been hastily written out and left with someone to post in order to make her family believe she was still abroad. She didn't want to upset them.

She wasn't trying to deceive the police. She had no inkling police would be involved. If it was MB that used her Medicare card, I don't think she would have expected friends and family to be able to find that out. How would they know?

If it wasn't MB who used the card, then whoever did was trying to deceive police, not family and friends.

 

[gymtonic]

Yeah, I agree the call doesn't add up and we can't take it at face value.

According to inquest, Marion called SL on 31 July or 1 Aug (Aus time).
Her passport entered Aus on 2 Aug (Aus time).

I interpret this as meaning she either stayed in UK and someone else used her passport.
Or she couldn't tell the truth and was already in transit to Aus.

I honestly can't say which one!

Here are my notes for the phone call(s) and happy to be corrected because I haven't gone back to check since I wrote them from podcast and early inquest notes:

30 July 1997 at 11:40pm (Oz time): Thredbo disaster happened (so word not out in Oz until early morning 31 July 1997)

31 July 1997: SL says they arrived back from Perisher later in the day to a phone message on the answerphone. Thredbo happened at 11.40pm on July 30 (Oz time) which would have been 2.40pm 30 July UK time. So, even if made immediately it happened (not possible), message call must have been made after 2.40pm 30 July 1997. Given the time taken for it to appear in the OZ news and even slower for UK news (BBC archives showed report on 31 July for example), it is unlikely that MB made the call to leave message until afternoon July 31 Oz time. MB's message says that she will phone back next day.

1 August 1997: MB phones SL a day later as she said she would. SL says it was late arvo to early evening AEST on 1 August 1997 (which would be morning of 1 August 1997 in UK). MB says she is phoning from a payphone (verified by dropping coins) and says she is in Tunbridge Wells and having tea and scones (morning tea?) with old ladies (fits with a phone call made in morning 1 August 1997). No indication that MB is upset or concerned about anything but whether SL was caught up in Thredbo. No indication that the call was made from an airport (no background noise discernible). No indication she is on her way back to Oz.

1 August 1997: Person with FNMR passport departs Hong Kong on Flight CX 103 at 9pm HK time (11.00pm Oz). (Information from UK sleuth who researched flight route for this flight). Flight number and date verified by passenger card.

2 August 1997: Flight CX 103 arrives Brisbane airport at 6.oo am Oz time (8/9 hours flying time?).

For all this to happen, MB has to make her way from TW to Heathrow for check-in time, fly to Hong Kong, transit at Hong Kong, and fly to Australia between late arvo evening 1 August 1997 and early morning 2 August 1997 (OZ time). PLUS UK Sleuth (podcast) said she had checked the timings and it wasn't possible.

Either MB didn't to make the journey and someone else did or MB lied about where she was making the phone call. For the second she also would have to have left a lot earlier and been in transit long enough to get coins and make a call.
EDIT: ...and have heard about Thredbo en route!

 

[gymtonic]

I'm just putting it out there that 'something' caused RB to cease all travel via JL & Narita after 31st July. There were many questions put to him at the inquest to explain why. He was unable to give any credible answer.
Could RB & MB have traveled from Amsterdam to Narita together and something happened there that could place them together. A MV accident during transfer to the hotel for example.
RB completes his return flight home to Australia.
Marion takes a flight to Australia with a layover in Hong Kong.
Once Marion is deceased, RB, in order to distance himself from potential witnesses in Narita ceases to use that route again. JMO and happy if it can be proved impossible.

Ah OK...I have a different potential explanation for all his travel during the 90s (frequency, routes, change of routes and JAL contact) which doesn't relate to MB at all (I think I've outlined MOO in earlier posts but to do with criminal activity in a nutshell) so I'm not placing MB in Tokyo at all.

 

[brjakj]

Here are my notes for the phone call(s) and happy to be corrected because I haven't gone back to check since I wrote them from podcast and early inquest notes:

30 July 1997 at 11:40pm (Oz time): Thredbo disaster happened (so word not out in Oz until early morning 31 July 1997)

31 July 1997: SL says they arrived back from Perisher later in the day to a phone message on the answerphone. Thredbo happened at 11.40pm on July 30 (Oz time) which would have been 2.40pm 30 July UK time. So, even if made immediately it happened (not possible), message call must have been made after 2.40pm 30 July 1997. Given the time taken for it to appear in the OZ news and even slower for UK news (BBC archives showed report on 31 July for example), it is unlikely that MB made the call to leave message until afternoon July 31 Oz time. MB's message says that she will phone back next day.

1 August 1997: MB phones SL a day later as she said she would. SL says it was late arvo to early evening AEST on 1 August 1997 (which would be morning of 1 August 1997 in UK). MB says she is phoning from a payphone (verified by dropping coins) and says she is in Tunbridge Wells and having tea and scones (morning tea?) with old ladies (fits with a phone call made in morning 1 August 1997). No indication that MB is upset or concerned about anything but whether SL was caught up in Thredbo. No indication that the call was made from an airport (no background noise discernible). No indication she is on her way back to Oz.

1 August 1997: Person with FNMR passport departs Hong Kong on Flight CX 103 at 9pm HK time (11.00pm Oz). (Information from UK sleuth who researched flight route for this flight). Flight number and date verified by passenger card.

2 August 1997: Flight CX 103 arrives Brisbane airport at 6.oo am Oz time (8/9 hours flying time?).

For all this to happen, MB has to make her way from TW to Heathrow for check-in time, fly to Hong Kong, transit at Hong Kong, and fly to Australia between late arvo evening 1 August 1997 and early morning 2 August 1997 (OZ time). PLUS UK Sleuth (podcast) said she had checked the timings and it wasn't possible.

Either MB didn't to make the journey and someone else did or MB lied about where she was making the phone call. For the second she also would have to have left a lot earlier and been in transit long enough to get coins and make a call.

Flight cx103 stopped in cairns before going to Brisbane. Any chance someone may have joined the flight there?

 

[Sillybilly]

Hey everyone,

Soliciting or discussing private messaging is NOT allowed. If you wish to PM with anyone, just do it without inviting, announcing, or discussing it on the thread.

From The Rules: Etiquette & Information

INVITING PRIVATE MESSAGES or EMAIL, and ALLUDING TO "INSIDE" INFORMATION

Inviting is termed as a post where you invite other members to contact you to find out more information, rather than post it in the forum. This is not allowed and any posts with emails or invitations to contact for more information will either be edited or deleted entirely.

This includes use of the Private Message system via comments such as Check your PMs or PM me posted in discussion threads.

Think about it - it's like whispering into someone's ear while you are at a table full of other people. If you want to have a private conversation just have it. Don't announce it.

Additionally, please don't state or suggest that you are privy to inside information, but either can't or won't discuss it.

If you can't post it, don't!

 

[gymtonic]

Flight cx103 stopped in cairns before going to Brisbane. Any chance someone may have joined the flight there?

Did it? I missed that info because the passenger card says Hong Kong to Brisbane. So international travellers didn't clear customs in Cairns or stayed on board (no transit lounge in Cairns then?). If it did stop in Cairns then that would make the journey even longer wouldn't it? How did they make it from Hong Kong dep 9pm to Brisbane at 6am or was the arrival time wrong on my notes?

 

[Bagpus]

Here are my notes for the phone call(s) and happy to be corrected because I haven't gone back to check since I wrote them from podcast and early inquest notes:

30 July 1997 at 11:40pm (Oz time): Thredbo disaster happened (so word not out in Oz until early morning 31 July 1997)

31 July 1997: SL says they arrived back from Perisher later in the day to a phone message on the answerphone. Thredbo happened at 11.40pm on July 30 (Oz time) which would have been 2.40pm 30 July UK time. So, even if made immediately it happened (not possible), message call must have been made after 2.40pm 30 July 1997. Given the time taken for it to appear in the OZ news and even slower for UK news (BBC archives showed report on 31 July for example), it is unlikely that MB made the call to leave message until afternoon July 31 Oz time. MB's message says that she will phone back next day.

1 August 1997: MB phones SL a day later as she said she would. SL says it was late arvo to early evening AEST on 1 August 1997 (which would be morning of 1 August 1997 in UK). MB says she is phoning from a payphone (verified by dropping coins) and says she is in Tunbridge Wells and having tea and scones (morning tea?) with old ladies (fits with a phone call made in morning 1 August 1997). No indication that MB is upset or concerned about anything but whether SL was caught up in Thredbo. No indication that the call was made from an airport (no background noise discernible). No indication she is on her way back to Oz.

Thank you for clarifying the telephone call / message. IIRC, SL remembers the call dropping out and MB saying something along the lines of "You talk, I'll just listen.".

That brings to my mind an image of MB putting her hand over the receiver to block out airport sounds or foreign voices.

We weren't in the age of fibre optic back then. I don't recall calls dropping out as much. There were echoes and delays, of course.

 

[brjakj]

Did it? I missed that info because the passenger card says Hong Kong to Brisbane. So international travellers didn't clear customs in Cairns or stayed on board (no transit lounge in Cairns then?). If it did stop in Cairns then that would make the journey even longer wouldn't it? How did they make it from Hong Kong dec 9pm to Brisbane at 6am or was the arrival time wrong on my notes?

If you google flight cx103 it suggests it went Hong Kong -> cairns -> Brisbane. I’m trying to find a flight route back in 1997 but haven’t found one yet.

 

[BonnieB]

That's very interesting.

There's just one thought to add to your reasoning.

It's a question of what was motivating the deception and who was being deceived. I don't think MB wanted to hurt her family, or cause confusion / interference in her plans. It would have been hard to explain her (temporary, as she thought) return to Australia to her family and friends. And how could she, in fact, explain it? She would have had to reveal her relationship with RB, which she had probably promised not to do. She probably had no plans to see family during her brief return either. So the delayed letters and cards may have been hastily written out and left with someone to post in order to make her family believe she was still abroad. She didn't want to upset them.

She wasn't trying to deceive the police. She had no inkling police would be involved. If it was MB that used her Medicare card, I don't think she would have expected friends and family to be able to find that out. How would they know?

If it wasn't MB who used the card, then whoever did was trying to deceive police, not family and friends.

I so agree with your reasoning. Trying to think as MB

 

[Deleted member 249471]

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. So that rules out something going wrong with accessing Barclays money <- <- <- So why change her name?! Argh.

 

[gymtonic]

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.

I agree, it's hard to tell whose handwriting it is. What complicates this is that handwriting can genuinely change with a change of name in a sense...because you are not writing the name you have previously. It would be easier to compare if the card had been in the MB name. I sat up and took notice during the last 3 days testimony when BS asked why (in one case) DdH and FDdH passenger cards were both in his writing and then asked him if it was his practice to complete cards for some one else! I thought BS might have been alluding to MB's (FNMR) cards then.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think AKA did make some similar errors on some of his cards that were crossed out by border control? Or maybe it was some forms he filled out?

One other thing that struck me about the difference between outgoing and incoming cards is that, on the outgoing card the person who has completed all of it, is sure of, and has completed the passport number. However on the incoming card it was all completed except for the passport number...which was left blank and completed by another person?

 

[KittensAugustus]

I'm very far behind so excuse returning to the eye test issue. I have two theories.

Theory 1: I wonder if Marion's Medicare card could have been presented by accident? If it was being carried around in the wallet of Blum then it's feasible DdH attended the optometrist and he accidentally presented Marion's card instead of Diane's?

Theory 2: My second theory on this is that Marion was being given some kind of drug and had headaches, prompting a visit to an optometrist due to her concern over her melanoma. If that is the case then my suspicion is Marion had been 'secreted' somewhere very close to the optometrist and, having no car, walked there for the test.

I recall at some stage in the inquest thinking RB said Marion was in a 'cabin.' If there are any cabins within walking distance of the Grafton optometrist I would be interested in investigating that further.