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

[Deleted member 249471]

Double post

 

[JLZ]

23 Apr 1980 – DdH and son depart Aus

21 Jan 1980 – DdH and son return to Aus

2 Apr 1981 – FDdH issued Aus passport issued Germany

Should 21 January 1980 be 1981?

 

[BonnieB]

Yes, I do think it's doubtful given their track record and the fact that no one can find evidence of their travels that this is the case. I do find it interesting, however, how INTENSELY RB pushed the point that he wouldn't have been having an affair with MC because DDH had JUST HAD A BABY.

From my personal observations, that is EXACTLY when men tend to seek extra marital satisfaction. I also think MC is the ONLY woman he ever had any degree of genuine feelings for. I also think he's treading a very fine line with DdH ... she knows too much about MB for him to ever throw her under a bus. He's a coward who never accepts responsibility, hence his attempts to trash MB's reputation.

 

[Estelle]

Yes agree with your theory .

I was just trying to determine why it is that both of them are hiding some significant details around the year of 1970.....
My thinking was with EWR born Jan 1970 in Sydney - and Ilona being in the last months of full pregnancy, old mate would no doubt be looking for some action, (given he is constantly fighting off women as he tells it).
Ilona and WW dont leave Aust unitl Feb for Belgium.

It could only be DdeH has some young romantic attachment to a European man she met briefly and she finds herself pregnant. With her family being as they are, no child would be welcomed into that fold given he is a 'married' man and heading back OS.
This fits with her tale of writing to him while away ( in prison) and reconnecting when he returns eventually at her parents cafe...... IMO

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.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

The CCTV was from a service station where her credit card was used. It happened approx one year before she left for Europe.

So that implies that the important thing that was stolen was her credit card which was in her wallet in 1994. So how did the thief get access to Marion's wallet? Did she leave her car unlocked? Where was her car? Where was she? If it was in 1994, after Marion answered Remakel's ad, I still think that DdH could have been surveilling Marion and took the opportunity to steal her wallet.

The thief wasn't caught on CCTV while stealing the card but using it at a petrol/gas station.

We are unsure exactly how and when the card was stolen. However, Marion told Sally she remembered leaving her car unlocked with an open door, at school, while she carried a basket and an armful of items inside, then returned to the car to lock it. She didn't immediately notice her card missing so we aren't sure it happened at this time, but rather a memory Marion had of leaving her car unlocked around the time her wallet was stolen.

Timeline
18 Jan 1994 – Marion buys Ashmore home and start at TSS
1994 – Wallet stolen
10 Dec 1994 – Le Courrier rencontres

 

[KeenSleuth17]

I wouldn't describe Marion as old fashion from Photo's we have seen, I would say she was pretty fashionable for her time, I think he has misinterpreted the reference on the podcast of her straight out of Little House on the Prairie, as old fashioned.

She definitely was not old fashion in the late 60's all photos show she is up with the fashion.

I feel like he is repeating what he has heard on the podcast rather than his actual memories, but that also doesn't surprise me as I think fact and fiction are intertwined in RB's life, he has probably forgot his own truth

100% this!!!!!

 

[Seriallyaddicted]

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if RB and DdH coached their children, gave them aliases, dressed them up and pushed them out into the street to pick pockets and swindle. The parent's seem to have no remorse or moral compass.

If I were the cops I would most definitely be speaking to RB & DDH kids childhood friends. Kids talk!

 

[Estelle]

Should 21 January 1980 be 1981?

Yes that error was made on the original timeline somebody composed.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

If I were the cops I would most definitely be speaking to RB & DDH kids childhood friends. Kids talk!

Although Alison said the kids won't take the stand as witnesses, DdH's lawyer presented themselves as representing wife and kids (but not RB). There would be zero reason to mention it, if the kids weren't part of investigation.

I have no proof or inside knowledge, but I suspect the kids would have been interviewed by police and made to give statements. Not all evidence or witnesses found are talked about in court or placed on the stand, but it is kept as evidence.

The fact the kids didn't take the stand, is telling. Inquest must't think there's value in it.

 

[Estelle]

From my personal observations, that is EXACTLY when men tend to seek extra marital satisfaction. I also think MC is the ONLY woman he ever had any degree of genuine feelings for. I also think he's treading a very fine line with DdH ... she knows too much about MB for him to ever throw her under a bus. He's a coward who never accepts responsibility, hence his attempts to trash MB's reputation.

I also predict that he could throw DdH under the bus at some stage. He's now claimed that he left the ad around the house and she saw it. But she has denied knowing anything about Marion until they were on their way home in the car from the police station.

 

[ruby925]

Casselden said that there were 10 passports in 8 different names - I made a note of that at the time. So there are only 8 'passport names'.

The 10 passport names do not include Lauzoney, but include 4 versions of FDH so only actually 6 different names.

 

[Estelle]

From memory, the thief wasn't caught on CCTV while stealing the card but using it at a petrol/gas station.

On the podcast, Sally said a possible scenario on how it was stolen, was that Marion left her car unlocked with an open door, at school, while she carried items and a basket inside, then returned to the car to lock it up. There is no memory of immediately noticing her card was missing, but that it was a time Marion could remember leaving her car unlocked around the time her wallet was stolen. So we don't know for sure if it happened in that moment or somewhere else.

Timeline
18 Jan 1994 – Marion buys Ashmore home and start at TSS
1994 – Wallet stolen
10 Dec 1994 – Le Courrier rencontres

So this would have to have occurred between 10 Dec 1994 and the school holidays if RB has received a reply from Marion and for DdH to have been following her.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Good point! So like... maybe 3 to 5 days for Marion to buy paper, see the Fernand ad and respond to it. Then for him to get the message by either phone or post box, then do some research and decide she was worth conning. Figure out her home and work addresses, find her, stalk her, and steal her wallet. All by public transport, lol.

@Estelle well done! You just proved Marion did NOT respond to RB's Le Courrier ad.

* Correction, if Le Courrier was placed on the 10th, then there was 5 to 10 days until the end of year, not 3 to 5. I actually think it's possible, we just need to find out when she reported her wallet stolen.

 

[Estelle]

Although Alison said the kids won't take the stand as witnesses, DdH's lawyer present themselves as representing wife and kids (but not RB). There would be zero reason to mention it, if the kids weren't part of investigation.

I have no proof or inside knowledge, but I suspect the kids would have been interviewed by police and made to give statements. Not all evidence or witnesses found are talked about in court or placed on the stand, but is kept as evidence.

The fact that kids didn't take the stand, is telling. Inquest must't think it would be valuable to do so.

IMO there is still time for their children to take the stand. The fact that a lawyer is representing the children as well makes me think that they could have valuable evidence or perhaps Casselden will simply refer to their statements.

 

[Estelle]

Good point! So like... 3 to 5 days for Marion to buy paper, see the Fernand ad and respond to it. Then for him to get the message by either phone or post box, then do some research and decide she was worth conning. Figure out her home and work addresses, find her, stalk her, and steal her wallet. Lol.

@Estelle well done! You just PROVED Marion did NOT respond to the RB's Le Courrier ad.

Are you sure, Peralta, that the conclusion is that Marion DID or DID NOT RESPOND to RB's AD?

I assumed that I had suggested the possibility that Marion had responded to his ad. What you said did not make sense to me at first.

The point I was really trying to make was whether it was DdH who stole Marion's wallet.

As RB put a phone no, most people phone the person if they have a choice. That is often done soon after they read the ad. They have a friendly conversation on the phone and often say more than they intend to when they are new at it. So probably RB now has Marion's full name, address (or looks it up in the phone book), where she works, and phone number at least. What he could then do is drive to her house early the next morning and wait for her to leave so he now knows what she looks like and her Car Reg no. He follows her to school in his car and notices that she leaves the door of her car open so he steals her wallet. I think it is quite possible for him to have achieved this within 24 hours and would not have taken as long as you predict for a conman like RB .

However, I am still wondering where Marion would have read the ad. But the school holidays would have been a great time for Marion to meet new men.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Are you sure, Peralta, that the conclusion is that Marion DID or DID NOT RESPOND to RB's AD?
I assumed that I had suggested the possibility that Marion had responded to his ad.
What you said does not make sense to me.

Oh, at first I thought it was impossible, and thought you had debunked a myth. But I had another look at school terms and now I think it IS possible. If Le Courrier was placed on the 10th, then there were 5 to 10 days (not 3 to 5) until the end of year.

The timing makes sense. She responds. He stalks her. By taking her wallet they can find out how much she has in the bank and if she is worth a long term con. But he never responds to her call/letter. Instead he 'casually and randomly' meets her at the Arts Centre in 1996.

I am shook. We just need to find out when she reported her wallet stolen.

 

[ruby925]

12 Feb 1976 – WW changes name to FDdH
IMO This is because his M J Reid name is a fake, he has not been divorced from Ilona and WW has a criminal record so he claims he lost his passport.

20 Feb 1976 – FDdH marries DW

23 Feb 1976 – FDdH applies for Aus citizenship

25 Mar 1976 – FDdH Aus citizenship granted and AU passport issued

28 July 1976 – FDdH and DdH depart Aus. DdH claims in the next few years they lived in Belgium,
3 years in Luxembourg, a few months in Bordeaux, France, back to Belgium, UK for 3 years then Aus

1977 We know they (he & DdeH) are listed in census docs living in 1/303 Old South West Road, Bondi and he has listed himself as an artist and D as a secretary. (Note D name is spelt here with 1 'N') He told her he was a Wedding Photographer

Oct 76 - Feb 77 – FDdH arrested in Luxembourg as Roger Lauzoney from Morocco born 1945

1977-07-13 Ilona died, age 31yo, St Kilda, Victoria of Myocardial ischaemia (heart), The Coroner at Melbourne Mr H.W. Pascoe ordered burial of the body without inquest. What happened to her two children? Was WW/MJR the father?

13 Aug 1978 – FDdH and DdH return to Aus

2 Apr 1979 – FDdH DdH son born in Sydney

1980 Are listed in living in Military Road, he's listed as a photographer and DdeH is listed as hd = (is this the abbreviation for hand?) Home Duties

6 Feb 1980 – FDdH departs Aus

23 Apr 1980 – DdH and son depart Aus

21 Jan 1980 – DdH and son return to Aus

2 Apr 1981 – FDdH issued Aus passport issued Germany

17 Apr 1981 – FDdH DW daughter born in Luxembourg

18 Nov 1981 – FDdH returns to Aus

4 Dec 1981 – FDdH departs Aus, no apparent re-entry into Aus for 6 years

The family name Lauson/Lauzon in connected with The Bordeaux region. RB is arrested with the name Roger Lauzoney after spending time in Bordeaux. Does he use this name before that?[/QUOTE]
My understanding is he was arrested 23jun71 in Rouen with an id of Lauzoney/lazoney and an Australian passport in name of FDH.

 

[vivienbee]

IMO there is still time for their children to take the stand. The fact that a lawyer is representing the children as well makes me think that they could have valuable evidence.

Possibly, although they would probably retain a lawyer anyway during this process to protect their interests. They have lives of their own, careers and reputations, and it would be best for them to get a lawyer so that if anyone tries to post anything inflammatory about them they can start legal proceedings/stop that from happening.

 

[LEO123]

Do you have the exact date please? So this occurred in 1996. Most people don't lock their cars at. service stations while they go into pay. I guess the wallet (in a purse?) was stolen which had the Medicare card in it from the front seat. So Marion just took her credit card in to pay. For a person to be able to steal Marion's wallet there, they would have to have been in the car behind her or in the other row. I can't imagine a person walking the streets running in to steal something from a car.

This makes me wonder (if it was DdH as she looked like Marion according to Sally) whether she was following Marion in her car so followed her in her car into the service station. As Marion had never seen DdH, she would not have been able to identify her. But if the service station had CCTV, you would have hoped that they would have seen the Reg No of the car. So if they did, I can only guess that the name and address used on the Registration was fake as police could not locate this person.
So RB and DdH now have Marion's name and address as well as we usually have that on some document in our wallets. What about Marion's driver's licence?

Is this the incident that Casselden is referring to which happened in 1996 and was the reason for their move?

Is this how DdH and RB came to know of Marion? Or were they already surveilling her?

Have police been able to connect this now?

Many questions and no answers. This was simply my attempt to understand what might have happened. IMO

What's your theory?

So that implies that the important thing that was stolen was her credit card which was in her wallet in 1994. So how did the thief get access to Marion's wallet? Did she leave her car unlocked? Where was her car? Where was she?

If it was in 1994, after Marion answered Remakel's ad, I still think that DdH could have been surveilling Marion and took the opportunity to steal her wallet.

So Sally talked about this early on in the Podcast. It happened at her mums house. She left her purse in her car in the driveway. Marion realised and went out to the car, and purse was gone. I assume that before she had a chance to put a stop on her card, it was used at servo by a woman. Police showed them the CCTV of the woman at the servo, and Sally was surprised by the resemblance to Marion. Not sure of the date exactly, I thought it was mid 1996, but I could have that wrong. There is so much information to keep track of with this.
I just hope the police have something from this CCTV that further implicates them in regard to Marion, and stealing from her. Not sure CCTV would be good enough to capture Rego. Hopefully car model though. They seem to know which cars they had and when. My only other thought is that RB may have had the opportunity to take the purse at some other point that day and she just didn’t suspect him, and wasn’t sure when she last saw her purse.

 

[ruby925]

Day 7 of the inquest, the discussion on dates of WW and DDH on the ship from Southampton etc. When AC established 1970 was impossible, WW settled on sailing Jan71 and arriving Mar71 with DDH being 19 and WW divorced from Ilona. WW stayed 6 weeks with DDH and family then flew back to Europe via Tahiti and Paris, with the intention of returning to Australia but then he was arrested in Rouen, Jun71. This is MOO, but this timeline makes sense to me and is typical of his pattern.
There are no Passenger Arrival Records at all for the first six months of 1971 on the NAA website, so this may explain why WW and DDH cannot be found arriving that year. The records probably exist of course but not digitised.
At this point WW already had residence status in Australia in WW name, but stated he wanted to be known as FDH, and probably introduced himself to DDH as FDH.