Australia Australia - Marion Barter, 51, missing after trip to UK, June 1997 #9

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
F.Knab said:
Some thoughts:

The only job you can prove this man ever held was with the gendarmerie due to the pension he is receiving from Belgium and I'm not convinced this is even true. I assume the Coroner can get his centrelink records.

I think the only job his wife ever had was probably in her parents coffee shop.

These two have been grifting off the Australian tax payer for decades. He on a DSP and and the wife on a carer pension. My conservative estimate of just his DSP payment alone, for 30 years is $780,000.

It's really shameful that he was allowed to get away with all the things he has done since the 70's. I would love to see this guy convicted then deported back to Belgium, they are welcome to have him back - I think Australia has done more than enough for him.
Click to expand...
Imagine if he was not the real WW and instead killed him then stole his pension. Sounds outlandish but I wouldn't put anything past this guy.
 
Peralta said:
Hey, so on the topic of Flamme, I think there is something explosive in the restricted document. Casselden was discussing JO, then went to Flame and revealed nothing, then went back to JO. I may be very wrong, but I think Casselden might be saving it for some reason. Perhaps until after RB digs himself into a deeper hole with Marion? In my imagination, then Casselden will finally divulge its contents and catch RB on a big whopper. IDK.

Oh boy, to be a fly on the wall, within the restricted document.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a particularly sensitive issue although I suppose that they could have discussed it in closed court if they felt the need to. So yes maybe he’s saving it for later.*

Belleandsebastian said:
It seems from what was said today that Andree Flamme was an old lady who he took advantage of and stole from. I would wager that his trips to visit his "family" consisted of him visiting old ladies and stealing their valuables, then either selling them in Europe or bringing them back to Australia to sell.
Click to expand...

Yes maybe he has a history of having visited old, disabled ladies and encouraged them to make him their power of attorney - hence why a child of an elderly victim would be so concerned about this to write to the Aus gov beit QLD Governor.

*Sorry for the double post above.
 
I think I am getting the big picture of RB capers thanks to the way C delves into this and how he uses clever tactics to throw off a witness he believes is not being truthful so he vacillates between subjects to throw him off and weaves something in for later on that he has tripped up on and creates confusion where confusion already exits because it is appearing he is making things up as he goes along to try to create the impression he has not done anything illegal to suggest he benefited or intended to benefit from his " flings " . All he thinks he has to do is NOT admit any criminal intent and he knows from experience because he has been caught out many times and as the old adage goes "DENY DENY DENY " .

So far i think C has done that job successfully IMO and even if C never has to cover any old ground re any of the evidence so far i believe he has enough already to convey his character even before C gets to question his time with Marion ......

He has already omitted and contradicted his very first question ...

C "" When did you last see Marion " And what did you talk about ? "

RB says " At her house in AARGGGH I think it was in Southport while she was packing ..

We all know that is not what he stated in his police statements...

He cooked himself right there today ....
 
centred said:
I think I am getting the big picture of RB capers thanks to the way C delves into this and how he uses clever tactics to throw off a witness he believes is not being truthful so he vacillates between subjects to throw him off and weaves something in for later on that he has tripped up on and creates confusion where confusion already exits because it is appearing he is making things up as he goes along to try to create the impression he has not done anything illegal to suggest he benefited or intended to benefit from his " flings " . All he thinks he has to do is NOT admit any criminal intent and he knows from experience because he has been caught out many times and as the old adage goes "DENY DENY DENY " .

So far i think C has done that job successfully IMO and even if C never has to cover any old ground re any of the evidence so far i believe he has enough already to convey his character even before C gets to question his time with Marion ......

He has already omitted and contradicted his very first question ...

C "" When did you last see Marion " And what did you talk about ? "

RB says " At her house in AARGGGH I think it was in Southport while she was packing ..

We all know that is not what he stated in his police statements...

He cooked himself right there today ....
Click to expand...

So true. I can’t wait til the next instalment. #68days
… but who’s counting?
 
Oh ok, sadly, it's not explosive. Taken from today's testimony (not the restricted file).

Summary to the Flamme testimony

Madame Andree Flamme was a widower in a wheelchair. According to RB, Madame Flamme had both Alzheimer’s and dementia and could barely put words together. She also sat in her wheelchair in her room all day long. Therefore, her complaints can’t be taken seriously.

Madame Flamme’s husband passed away and left some coins. At first, RB says the son-in-law knew he was going to the Belgian Royal Library so he asked him to research the coins. But then he changed his story to that RB kept running into the son-in-law at the Belgian Royal Library as he saw him there nearly every day (implying son-in-law was also up to no good).

Then, the daughter and son-in-law took RB to see Madame Flamme at her house to identify and evaluate her late husband’s coin collection. RB says he only went the one time. Not sure what the exact complaint was, but in her complaint, Madame Flamme made allegations of wrongdoing by RB.

RB denies wrongdoing as he believes it was actually the daughter that made up the complaint while impersonating her mother, then emailed the complaint to RB. RB says it couldn’t have been the ‘old lady’ that made the complaint because she didn’t know anything about email and was practically catatonic (my words/paraphrasing).

During current investigation, when police asked RB if he knew Madame Andree Flamme, he said no. Casselden asked him how he just told a very vivid recollection to the court about the incident. RB starts mumbling along the lines that he didn't know Madame Flamme as he only met her once, and it was the son-in-law he knew best. Casselden cut him off because he couldn't quite speak due to foot in mouth.

Next RB admits he returned to Australia with Madame Flamme’s coins (no explanation given) but he returned the coins after the received the daughter's fake complaint/email while impersonating Madame Flamme, as he did not want to be associated with that. He sent them back to the Flamme family by registered post from Miami and gave the receipt to Casselden.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The one thing that has stood out to me this week is the way he talks about Monique, all the other woman he could not care less about but so many times he commented how smart and clever she is. I get the feeling he really liked her and the fantasy he most likely created in his head. I would love to have read her police statement.
 
Peralta said:
Oh ok, sadly, it's not explosive. Taken from today's testimony (not the restricted file).

Summary to the Flamme testimony

Madame Andree Flamme was a widower in a wheelchair. According to RB, Madame Flamme had both Alzheimer’s and dementia and could barely put words together. She also sat in her wheelchair in her room all day long. Therefore, her complaints can’t be taken seriously.

Madame Flamme’s husband passed away and left some coins. At first, RB says the son-in-law knew he was going to the Belgian Royal Library so he asked him to research the coins. But then he changed his story to that RB kept running into the son-in-law at the Belgian Royal Library as he saw him there nearly every day (implying son-in-law was also up to no good).

Then, the daughter and son-in-law took RB to see Madame Flamme at her house to identify and evaluate her late husband’s coin collection. RB says he only went the one time. Not sure what the exact complaint was, but in her complaint, Madame Flamme made allegations of wrongdoing by RB.

RB denies wrongdoing as he believes it was actually the daughter that made up the complaint while impersonating her mother, then emailed the complaint to RB. RB says it couldn’t have been the ‘old lady’ that made the complain because she didn’t know anything about email and was practically catatonic (my words/paraphrasing).

During current investigation, when police asked RB if her knew Madame Andree Flamme, he said no. Casselden asked him how he just told a very vivid recollection to the court about the incident. RB starts mumbling along the lines that he didn't know Madame Flamme as he only met her once, and it was the son-in-law he knew best. Casselden cut him off because he couldn't quite get the foot out of his mouth in order to speak.

Next RB admits he returned to Australia with Madame Flamme’s coins (no explanation given) but returned the coins after the daughter's fake complaint/email while impersonating Madame Flamme, as he did not want to be associated with that. He sent them by registered mail from Miami and gave the receipt to Casselden.
Click to expand...
Feels like there’s more to it. What’s the wrongdoing?
 
Seabreeze1 said:
The one thing that has stood out to me this week is the way he talks about Monique, all the other woman he could not care less about but so many times he commented how smart and clever she is. I get the feeling he really liked her and the fantasy he most likely created in his head. I would love to have read her police statement.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he almost expresses some type of genuine emotion when she says she was “young and dumb”. Empathy at last!
 
Yeah... I'd check those coins from the Coppenolle family that are currently for sale. And I'd also get a good coin expert to check the validity of the ones he's returning to the Flamme family...
 
Peralta said:
Yeah... I'd check those coins from the Coppenolle family that are currently for sale. And I'd also get a good coin expert to check the validity of the ones he's returning to the Flamme family...
Click to expand...
And isn’t the letter from 2010 but he’s only returning them now/recently? In the context of the current predicament he’s in. Seems genuine. :rolleyes:
 
Peralta said:
Oh ok, sadly, it's not explosive. Taken from today's testimony (not the restricted file).

Summary to the Flamme testimony

Madame Andree Flamme was a widower in a wheelchair. According to RB, Madame Flamme had both Alzheimer’s and dementia and could barely put words together. She also sat in her wheelchair in her room all day long. Therefore, her complaints can’t be taken seriously.

Madame Flamme’s husband passed away and left some coins. At first, RB says the son-in-law knew he was going to the Belgian Royal Library so he asked him to research the coins. But then he changed his story to that RB kept running into the son-in-law at the Belgian Royal Library as he saw him there nearly every day (implying son-in-law was also up to no good).

Then, the daughter and son-in-law took RB to see Madame Flamme at her house to identify and evaluate her late husband’s coin collection. RB says he only went the one time. Not sure what the exact complaint was, but in her complaint, Madame Flamme made allegations of wrongdoing by RB.

RB denies wrongdoing as he believes it was actually the daughter that made that complain while impersonating her mother and emailed the complaint to RB. RB says it couldn’t have been the ‘old lady’ that made the complain/email because she didn’t know anything about email and was practically catatonic (my words / paraphrasing).

During current investigation, when police asked RB if her knew Madame Andree Flamme, he said no. Casselden asked him how he just told a very vivid recollection to the court about the incident. RB starts mumbling along the lines that he didn't know Madame Flamme as he only met her once, and it was the son-in-law he knew best. Casselden cut him off because he couldn't quite get the foot out of his mouth in order to speak.

Next RB admits he returned to Australia with Madame Flamme’s coins (no explanation given) but returned the coins after the daughter's fake complaint/email while impersonating Madame Flamme, as he did not want to be associated with that. He sent them by registered mail from Miami and gave the receipt to Casselden.
Click to expand...


yes when he gets caught out on anything he in his words " makes restitution " and he claims a misunderstanding so it cannot implicate him down the track of any further repercussions .

It has me baffled however as to why some of the things he says to try to claim innocence and project it on to others could be just denied or agreed to and it would sound more feasible IMO

Perhaps it is a pathology within himself and his own self reality of who he is or wants to appear to be or/and he is trying to convince his children and others he is a victim of wanton women but by doing so he is IMO his own worst enemy by sticking to this premise . This has only served to confuse himself and will be his downfall .

So the only thing i am querying now is the scenario that really played out with Marion .

The only thing i do not get from today is the claim his wife knew and the add being visible to family home members ???

So I am going to re listen to the last 15 minutes or so of the inquest to see how this played out today because i missed something as this seemed to come out of the blue and so left field .

So what happened to Marion ?
 
He insisted he only went to Madame Flamme's house just the once. Which probably means he went multiple times. I suspect he found the death or funeral notice of her husband and stalked her with the intention of doing what he always does. But to his delight, found she had a coin collection.

I don't know if he already had an interest in coins, or if this was what started it. I don't know what year all this happened. The restricted file has a date from 2010 but that is the date it was uploaded to the site. Madame Flamme passed away 11 Jan 2019. We need to find out when her husband Emile Flamme died.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I learned today is that he reads lot of different newspapers, regularly.

He mentioned reading them while he waited for his kids during swimming training in Northern NSW.
And he mentioned buying them every lunchtime on the corner of Market and Pitt in Sydney.

I think it's possible it's how he meets his victims:
MC: not sure but he did NOT meet her while furniture shopping with FR/Lux, he 'met' her on the street
AF: possibly husband's funeral notice
GGB: her lonely hearts ad
JO: coin fairs
Marion: possibly article about teacher award in 1996, he may have done research on her and found the old articles about her and Johnny Warren too, hence why he pulled out his dusty and unused FR id and used it on her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just catching up with today's court proceedings. The Winchester Cathedral questioning is interesting.

All of the other places mentioned by RB or the lawyer are close together - Burwash, Hastings, Rye, Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells, Dover, Deal. All in that far south east corner of England. Winchester is further - about 100 miles. Who knows. the whole thing is so odd.
 
Peralta said:
What I learned today is that he reads lot of different newspapers, regularly.

He mentioned reading them while he waited for his kids during swimming training in Northern NSW.
And he mentioned buying them every lunchtime on the corner of Market and Pitt in Sydney.

I think it's possible it's how he meets his victims:
MC: not sure but he did NOT meet her while furniture shopping with FR/Lux, he stalked her on the street
AF: possibly husband's funeral notice
GGB: her lonely hearts ad
JO: coin fairs
Marion: possibly article about teacher award in 1996, he may have done research on her and found the old articles about her and Johnny Warren too, hence why he pulled out his dusty and unused FR id and used it on her.
Click to expand...


I see him first as an opportunist and sometimes opportunity knocks and others he stumbles on adds etc but i don't think he stalks first ..just MO
 
I agree! Probably poor choice of words, I meant he stalked (researched her and watched her) then at the right time, approached her on the street as per MC's statement.

He needs to make sure his victims are single and have something to steal! I think it's all very well researched and premeditated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KeenSleuth17 said:
And isn’t the letter from 2010 but he’s only returning them now/recently? In the context of the current predicament he’s in. Seems genuine. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He returned it when the complaint was made yes ?
Hence no wrong doing anyway once things are returned .

I suggest this is the catalyst to end his travels because now he is wanted by Belgium police for questioning ... I am thinking he cooled his heels big time when this incident caught up with him
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 89 more.
Total: 2,388 (members: 90, guests: 2,298)

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
2,298
Total visitors
2,388
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,525
Messages
18,157,799
Members
231,756
Latest member
sandrz717
Back
Top