Australia Australia - Marion Barter, 51, missing after trip to UK, June 1997 #8

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think he may have had legal representation from Legal Aid… and in my professional experience Legal Aid does at times drop their matters and no longer provide representation if, either the person who received the grant has had a change in circumstances financially so they are no longer eligible for the grant, or the person they are representing is not cooperating with reasonable instructions from the lawyer, or if there is a conflict of interest and someone else in the matter is being represented by Legal Aid.



Yes describes her highly and used the word, “fantastic person”. Seems still in luuuurve with the woman.
.

I’m wondering if he wanted to do something illegal/unethical and they noped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLZ
I am catching up now... How incredibly convenient that every one of the women he has ever had an affair with just happen to be either the subject of or witnesses at this inquest! But of course there has never been any other affair.

And all of the names he's ever used fraudulently also happen to be all the ones he's caught red handed with; but of course he's never used any others. He was just an unlucky conman who's happened to be caught for every single alias he's ever tried on.

It's fascinating to watch someone so full of BS just continue on - I wonder if he really believes he's talking his way out of this?
 
I think he may have had legal representation from Legal Aid… and in my professional experience Legal Aid does at times drop their matters and no longer provide representation if, either the person who received the grant has had a change in circumstances financially so they are no longer eligible for the grant, or the person they are representing is not cooperating with reasonable instructions from the lawyer, or if there is a conflict of interest and someone else in the matter is being represented by Legal Aid.

Very interesting! All options might apply with this one.
 
Any lawyer who wants to keep any sort of decent reputation as well as keep in line with their code of conduct, shouldn’t represent anyone they know to be lying. They can present a defence for a guilty party who is admitting guilt but can’t be seen to condone actively lying. I suspect they all keep having to remove themselves from the case, the more the web of lies unravels.
 
Casselden is not Sally's lawyer:

Adam Casselden
– representing the Coroner, puts the inquest together and presents it to the court
Bradley Smith from Addisons – representing Sally Leydon, family of missing person Marion Barter
Kim Burke – representing NSW Police Commissioner, Garry Sheehan and Graham Childs
Sam Saadat / Dan from Khoder – representing Dianne de Hedervary (nee Walker) and kids
Bridget Kennedy / Paul Townsend / ? – representing Ric Blum
 
The link isn't live anymore so I guess that's it for today.

He seemed surprised, as you would when it was said his evidence would continue tomorrow, but at Byron Bay and was told the details could be worked out with the police.
 
Very interesting! All options might apply with this one.

I would bet my house on him not cooperating with reasonable instructions and/or a lack of faith and trust in legal counsel. ALL lawyers have an overriding duty to the court; they cannot be complicit in blatant lying. He probably refused to listen to them when they pointed out the total nonsense that is his story and advised him the court would see straight through it.
 
So why are the police in the room? Doesn’t seem they are required there to be witnesses, seems they are there for RB? And why are the police going to talk to him about “how that is going to happen” in respect of him getting to Byron Bay tomorrow!?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
2,174
Total visitors
2,320

Forum statistics

Threads
602,073
Messages
18,134,207
Members
231,231
Latest member
timbo1966
Back
Top