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

[centred]

Nobody has seen any documents/Marriage Certificates as all the other marriages took place overseas. But the way Casselden spoke about them and RB didn't deny them, I assumed they took place.

Well considering he is a compulsive liar as you said too , i do not assume anything .

I have never assumed he was actually married unless i can see some document to prove it , he obviously wrote he was married , not married , divorced for reasons which have become quite apparent and obvious now considering all we have gleaned so far ...he knows the police know a lot more than we do as well , so i look at it that way and take note of the questions they were asked for clues for that information .
edit to add ..
he even claimed they had the order of the marriages around the wrong way and that one only lasted 2 weeks or some very short period ....

And Mr C did of course not argue or challenge the point which of course is also strategic ...Mr C let many things go that he said "to hang himself " I mused at his expression and sometimes lack of expressions when he "catches " him out ..and he will leave it to later ...

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Yes but for it to be the same solicitor representing them, I imagine their views would have to be aligned with and not opposing DdH .. or it would be a conflict of interest.

Good point, so true! A lawyer can represent multiple clients if they are on the 'same side' but legally can NOT represent multiple clients if they are in opposition to each other or could create issue for each other. That is conflict of interest.

So, given the wife and kids are represented by same person, we can deduce they are on the same side and will provide ZERO value to the court.

 

[Estelle]

Good point, so true! A lawyer can represent multiple clients if they are on the 'same side' but legally can NOT represent multiple clients if they are in opposition to each other. That is conflict of interest.

So, given the wife and kids are represented by same person, we can deduce they are on the same side and will provide ZERO value to the court.

If things change and they want to dob either paren't in, then they will be dropped as clients. But like I said earlier, it will likely result in an arrest and a paused inquest.

So, given the wife and kids are represented by same person, we can deduce they are on the same side and will provide ZERO value to the court.

I don't understand that they would provide no value to the court if they are on their mother's side because that means they are not on their father's side. In that case, would it mean that they could give evidence that opposes their father's testimony?

 

[Deleted member 249471]

In this case, it doesn't mean they have separate lawyers because his wife and kids are in opposition to him. RB needs his own lawyer, regardless, due to his history, involvement with Marion, and their shared FNR name... let's call him the star of the show. Whereas the wife and kids are just witnesses. So sharing one lawyer for the whole family would be a conflict of interest. If police find she is more involved, then she will get a new lawyer, separate from her kids.

 

[Estelle]

Well considering he is a compulsive liar as you said too , i do not assume anything .

I have never assumed he was actually married unless i can see some document to prove it , he obviously wrote he was married , not married , divorced for reasons which have become quite apparent and obvious now considering all we have gleaned so far ...he knows the police know a lot more than we do as well , so i look at it that way and take note of the questions they were asked for clues for that information .
edit to add ..
he even claimed they had the order of the marriages around the wrong way and that one only lasted 2 weeks or some very short period ....

And Mr C did of course not argue or challenge the point which of course is also strategic ...Mr C let many things go that he said "to hang himself " I mused at his expression and sometimes lack of expressions when he "catches " him out ..and he will leave it to later ...

I have a feeling that he did legally marry Ilona in Belgium so IMO that is the one that matters the most and why DdH and RB have concocted the story of the Chusan and arriving in 1970 to erase any history of Ilona in RB's life.

 

[mishy66]

When I read your theory I thought no way. But I then thought about it and wondered whether RB could also have been working at her parent's cafe then. She was only 19yo in 197o. I don't think she would have known about Ilona then as he keeps those things private and if she happened to have become pregnant, she would have to have had an abortion. However, he could have decided to write to her, as he knew her address, in preparation for his return so that he would have a job.

Yes I am sorry I didnt explain myself clearly in my first post.
It was an idea I had after you had posted regarding him possibly getting a job at a cafe after "first" arriving in Australia.

I would say she actually had the baby and adopted it out - very common thing to do back then and having an abortion wouldn't warrant their insistence that they met in 1970 on the ship ( how would anyone ever know about an abortion and what difference would it make to their coverup story) .........but having to hide the potential fact that there is another sibling out there is something that maybe they don't want their children to know???? THAT is why both of them have stuck with the 1970 meeting on the ship story IMO

Since RB has now come clean with a few new kids on the block, it probably doesn't matter in the big scheme of things but DdeH may not have known that he had all these other kids ( I dont think she did know that).

But at this stage after a week of reading so much about him and also her, I reckon someone will find out he is actually the real Bernard Madoff!!! hahahahha

 

[centred]

I was listening to the latest podcast so which said it was 20 acres big. Sounds HUGE to me, where did that money go to?? Plus the money for the house. I think he’s just pissed away thousands and thousands over the years IMO

Land back when they Acquired it was pretty cheap especially if it was 20 acres and undeveloped and full of noxious weeds and there was talk about building at one stage , anyway regardless imo the money had to be "hidden " so it cannot appear above pension allowances limits etc ...so most likely re invested in coins and overseas expenses and what ever else and don't forget they also had a family trust .

 

[mishy66]

....pause inquest for a few years and start a criminal trial. IMO

a few years! omg he could be 10ft under by then

 

[centred]

I have a feeling that he did legally marry Ilona in Belgium so IMO that is the one that matters the most and why DdH and RB have concocted the story of the Chusan and arriving in 1970 to erase any history of Ilona in RB's life.

i do not have feelings about it and it may matter in the context you are trying to convey, regardless even if what you are saying it is important to your timeline IMO it makes no difference if he was "legally " married or not , all but marriage to D in Australia could be all faked by fraudulent documents , gees he went to prison for these things and was caught for it ....

Why are you so certain these where legal unions ? Not that i think it matters except for the fact that he may have had a "fake Marriage " with Marion ..overseas as per usual ......i don't have a problem with anyone who has also suggested as much ...

 

[mishy66]

I think he’s just pissed away thousands and thousands over the years IMO

No way, he is too smart for that

 

[Estelle]

a few years! omg he could be 10ft under by then

I think the best strategy will be to charge either of them with what they can, suggest the possible prison term, then ask them to lead them to Marion. If she is found, then offer them a plea deal and to pay restitution. That would happen faster as if they are charged with a crime/s and they plead not guilty, it could be a long trial. IMO

 

[centred]

So, given the wife and kids are represented by same person, we can deduce they are on the same side and will provide ZERO value to the court.

I don't understand that they would provide no value to the court if they are on their mother's side because that means they are not on their father's side. In that case, would it mean that they could give evidence that opposes their father's testimony?

They could be saving them for an actual court case where opposing evidence matters and can be challenged . This is merely a coroners court to find out what might have happened to Marion Barter so there is no opposing , there is only witness of knowledge of Marion Barter .

 

[Ooohm]

RB’s complaints about the trials and tribulations of being the steward of rainforest land reminds me of the feminist writer Germaine Greer and her book White Beech-The Rainforest Years. It’s all about her efforts to restore a large former dairy farm in the Gold Coast Hinterland, back to original forest. No mean feat. She eventually donated it to The Friends of Gondwana Rainforest trust.
RB hasn’t been known to do anything kind or generous in his life, at least from what I can gather from the inquest and podcast.
That’s the problem with invisibility: an utter lack of substance.
As The Beatles sang-
He’s a real nowhere man,
Sitting in his nowhere land,
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.

 

[Estelle]

i do not have feelings about it and it may matter in the context you are trying to convey, regardless even if what you are saying it is important to your timeline IMO it makes no difference if he was "legally " married or not , all but marriage to D in Australia could be all faked by fraudulent documents , gees he went to prison for these things and was caught for it ....

Why are you so certain these where legal unions ? Not that i think it matters except for the fact that he may have had a "fake Marriage " with Marion ..overseas as per usual ......i don't have a problem with anyone who has also suggested as much ...

I had never thought that RB would have had a faked marriage with DdH! That's a new idea.

 

[Belleandsebastian]

I had never thought that RB would have had a faked marriage with DdH! That's a new idea.

It’s their wedding anniversary today wonder how that’s going.

 

[Estelle]

It’s their wedding anniversary today wonder how that’s going.

Yes it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall.

 

[vivienbee]

a few years! omg he could be 10ft under by then

10ft? Isn't it usually 6ft? This cracked me up regardless.

 

[vivienbee]

It’s their wedding anniversary today wonder how that’s going.

I love this forum

 

[xdfg]

Woohoo, that's a good job in my eyes This case is bonkers!

If we count Roger Lauzoney, it's 7. I think the 2002 FDdH is also a passport as I think he officially returned to that name, so 8? A maybe 8 is practically 10, right? But now I can't sleep until I find all 10.

It was mentioned (either in court or on the news, or both) that some of the passports were just spelling variations of the same name.

 

[MrsWattle]

Ilona's family members could really help this case if they decided to call and make a statement, actually the whole family could pick up the phone and call crime stoppers anonymously