Australia Australia - Marion Barter, 51, missing after trip to UK, June 1997 #6

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.
Also oh my god I missed the section of questioning where he changed his name to Rich Richard and when I came back and heard casseldon saying ‘rich Richard or ric’ I was very confused why he was using three first names every time he referred to him
 
where were her sons ? I feel like he doesn't even have to create distance between people, it already exists, he must be good at picking them or backs off quickly maybe if family are overly involved
 
This is so eerie, remembering these events happened just two years after Marion went missing. The method is so eerily similar to what we know of Marion's last movements. He had a process that was tried and true.

I can hardly breathe... anxious to get to the point where JO will reveal how the hell she got out of his grasp.
 
All of this could have happened to Marion.

RB suggested that JO take important documents overseas.
  • The title deed to her house
  • Her birth certificate
  • Her AU citizen cert
  • Her power of attorney cert
  • Her marriage cert
  • Keys to her house and $1000 in cash
The idea conveyed to her was that they were going to settle in Europe and she needed to be able to prove who she was. She determined that if she did stay in Europe with RB, she'd pass the house on to her sons. But she didn't make any arrangements to do that before leaving and had in fact planned on returning to Australia for Christmas.

Trip Itnerary: Bali, Amsterdam, and then England.
Dec 2 1999: She had a one-way ticket to Bali. He paid.
Dec 5 1999: they flew from Bali to Amsterdam. He seemed very comfortable there in Amsterdam. They stayed in the hotel for the most part. He suggested in Amsterdam that she leave her lugagge at the airport for safe keeping and they'd pick it up on the way back from England.
Dec 8 1999: They took a ferry overnight to Harwich, England. He wanted to take the ferry instead of flying directly to London. They stayed at the Hanover Inn in Harwich. Then they took the train to Colchester town on Dec 9 1999. Then they drove to Sussex because he wanted to find a place to rent. Then they went to Dover. He suggested in Dover that she go stay with a cousin up in Manchester because he wanted to go do business in France.
She went to Manchester alone from Dec 11 - 16 1999 and stayed with her cousin.
 
Last edited:
Based on JO’s experience overseas with RB, I wonder if he said to Marion ‘oh you go off and tour the countryside while I go take care of some business’. Other than the last contact while she was in Tonbridge Wells, is there a summary anywhere on Marion’s movements within the UK before that last contact?
 
Also, between Dover and Manchester he broke up with her. He didn't leave JO alone just for business. They were over.

I wonder if he did the same to Marion but she had no one overseas to turn to like JO (she had cousins) and Marion simply didn't have the means to return home?

The question then is, as he had all her documents and a suitcase of her clothes, did someone else return to Aus as JO or Marion?

Court is paused for lunch. Back in an hour to finish JO testimony.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bibno said:
I have no understanding of Austalian law, I'm in the UK, and so that might be why I'm puzzled by the Inquest.

I'm managing to follow the content of the, and I know that the purpose of the Inquest is to establish whether or not Marion Barter is living or has died. I assume there is no evidence that RB has committed any crime against Marion Barter, otherwise I expect he would have been charged already. So I'm wondering what is the basis for his inclusion in this process.

Just watching the live streams, the information is presented without any broader context, so it's up to us to infer why RB has been included, which is quite easy. There is also information from witnesses with whom he has had other similar relationships, I assume to demonstrate that he had a track record of befriending vulnerable women.

I just don't understand why the Inquest is the place for revealing this information and investigating his character, this wouldn't be the place to accuse him of anything, would it?

It's fascinating to me, but I can't understand why the police aren't just working on either finding evidence to charge him, or eliminating him. Doesn't including him in the Inquest give him a bit of a heads up that he is under suspicion of something (if he is), and doesn't this give him more opportunity to do adopt a new guise and do a runner?

I know that often Police don't want to alert a suspect to the fact that they are under suspicion, but possibly they may be hoping that the publicity brings out more witnesses or jogs memories.

Can anyone explain this to me, I'm sure I'm just missing something?
Click to expand...

At the end of the inquest, the Coroner may make recommendations, one of these could be (in my opinion is likely to be) a recommendation to the NSW Police to begin criminal prosecution against a person for a death/murder.

I think the tricky part is that all of the information on RB’s track record, international and Australian criminal history, behaviour patterns etc demonstrate a likelihood (given he had similar relationship with Marion to these other women), that there was foul play and that he is probably responsible in some way for her demise. But NOT evidence that he did.
However, without solid evidence of her current whereabouts deceased or alive or anything more solid about him coming to harm her, it is difficult for there to be any prosecution against him because it is all merely circumstantial and is about his history - the court has problems presenting this kind of information as evidence and the Defence usually argue against presenting historical information about unrelated people etc.
I presume however that this evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution although circumstantial if it is a Coroner’s recommendation.

I don’t have a legal background so someone will probably explain that better than me, and I’m also happy to be corrected.
 
KiwiNZ said:
went to Bali and had a day out in the slums ..
went to Amsterdam and went to a few train stations

doesn't sound like a millionaire lifestyle
Click to expand...

Yeah, intriguing isn’t it? And it also seems that this poor lady was quite gullible and naive. Notwithstanding that he groomed his victims and chose vulnerable & lonely women. However even in hindsight she isn’t realising things until they’re pointed out to her by Counsel Assisting today.
I’m intrigued because Marion seemed to have her wits about her and I can’t remember Sally pointing out being easily led? Although this guy is a good groomer isn’t he. Such a shame for these poor women, I really feel for them.
 
Teresa O’Sullivan – NSW State Coroner
Adam Casselden – council assisting representing Coroner
Mr Smith from Addisons – representing Sally Leydon, family of missing person Marion Barter
Kim Burke – representing NSW Police for Graham Childs and Garry Sheehan
Bridget Kennedy - representing Ric Blum (seen on day 1)

Seriallyaddicted said:
Is the Addisons guy there for RB? What about Kim Burke?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 165 more.
Total: 1,887 (members: 166, guests: 1,721)

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
1,721
Total visitors
1,887
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,725
Messages
18,209,621
Members
233,945
Latest member
fales922
Back
Top