Australia Australia - Marion Barter, 51, missing after trip to UK, Jun 1997 #2

[Sophie-Renee]

The worst bit about this doctor stuff is that it’s highly unlikely any records would still be available at all, even if the coroner requested them. If they’re destroyed (due to the legal time limit passing to retain documents) there’s really not much that can be done. I hope they’ve been retained by some miracle but I doubt it!

You are right there is usually the 7 year rule that applies especially to such confidential information. But even just the fact if a doctor could see a patient had not seen anyone in 7 years alarm bells would ring. It's a shame that the 7 year rule doesn't then trigger some warning bells. But then... What doctors or bankers have time for that? It's not their job.. Its just such a shame that while we should not have to live in a surveillance state that there are some indicators if records could be used that could actually help to alert something being amiss. If Sally had been taken seriously straight away, there could have been so much documentation to draw on that has since been destroyed.

 

[Sophie-Renee]

The worst bit about this doctor stuff is that it’s highly unlikely any records would still be available at all, even if the coroner requested them. If they’re destroyed (due to the legal time limit passing to retain documents) there’s really not much that can be done. I hope they’ve been retained by some miracle but I doubt it!

You are right there is usually the 7 year rule that applies especially to such confidential information. But even just the fact if a doctor could see a patient had not seen anyone in 7 years alarm bells would ring. It's a shame that the 7 year rule doesn't then trigger some warning bells. But then... What doctors or bankers have time for that? It's not their job.. Its just such a shame that while we should not have to live in a surveillance state that there are some indicators if records could be used that could actually help to alert something being amiss. If Sally had been taken seriously straight away, there could have been so much documentation to draw on that has since been destroyed.

Ah! Yes! This is really important in my opinion.

Ok so, I am currently travelling around Europe. I flew into Germany and obviously showed my Australian passport there but from there I’ve been catching trains between countries in the Schengen region and whilst train officials have seen my passport nobody has stamped it or anything, they’ve just been checking to see if I have one!

You would probably know more than me about this Sophie because you’re in the UK, but last time I went by train from the UK to France, nobody stamped my passport either (from memory).

I think it’s entirely possible she left the UK. She had quite a bit of time to do so. Whether or not laws in any European country allowed her to marry or not is a harder question to answer because without us having a guess at which country’s laws to look into, we are just stabbing in the dark!

Yes, that is the perks of the EU free movement. You could literally just hop on a train and keep travelling unchecked within that region. In spite of this as I say not done too much foreign travel except for when I was younger but generally by plane.

I think you can travel though pretty freely on land between countries. And yes if she was just asked to present it, then no records will ever show up anything other than those longer haul flights. And she was a teacher, it seems a very intelligent lady and if she knew what she was doing she was probably very cautious not to leave a paper trail. The Internet was not the existence it was today but am sure she had heard of it and could have hazarded a guess that one day we would move to a more digital age. She probably had good hindsight. I think she would have taken every measure possible to keep her profile to its lowest.

I double checked too and Luxembourg is a schengen country as I thought, along with Germany, France and most others.

 

[Mel 1303]

You are right there is usually the 7 year rule that applies especially to such confidential information. But even just the fact if a doctor could see a patient had not seen anyone in 7 years alarm bells would ring. It's a shame that the 7 year rule doesn't then trigger some warning bells. But then... What doctors or bankers have time for that? It's not their job.. Its just such a shame that while we should not have to live in a surveillance state that there are some indicators if records could be used that could actually help to alert something being amiss. If Sally had been taken seriously straight away, there could have been so much documentation to draw on that has since been destroyed.

The thing is, Sally was taken seriously straight away. It was the initial investigation that uncovered the account at the Colonial Bank in Ashmore- Sally didn't know about it. Marion was identified there withdrawing the balance of her account. Jack Wilson, in his letter to the Salvation Army, said that police told him "Bank security had contacted her on the phone. He said that the bank security were like police, and they were satisfied with their investigation, and that if I wanted to probe further I should get a private detective and start in Byron Bay." Episode 4, 7:12
In the letter from the Salvos, it was stated that his (Jack's) daughter had been identified withdrawing money at a different bank (we now know to be the colonial) and that she spoke of starting a new life. Episode 4, 8:12.

Actual police protocol states that a person in authority, not a police officer, needs to sight the person who has been reported missing.
A MP must only be ‘located’ when he / she has been sighted by a person in authority (eg: Police Officer, Customs Officer, Family and Community Services, Department of Immigration Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Department of Corrective Services, treating Doctor, Mental Health Practitioner, School Principal). If in doubt seek advice from the MPU. The locating officer should sight the MP and check that the MP is safe and well and provide any assistance where necessary.
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/631004/nsw_police_force_handbook.pdf pg 186
I asked, and yes, a bank employee following correct procedures would be a person in authority. So, a bank employee, as a person in authority, identified Marion withdrawing the balance of her account from the Colonial bank in Ashmore. They were able to follow up via phone call, with Marion- so they had a number. It seems this phone call is where the "tell Sally I'm angry about the car, and tell them to stop looking for me in Byron Bay" came from. She was deemed located, and therefore this would have been a closed case, and, as described in the podcast, would have been destroyed after 6 years.

For all we know, the police do have information about Marion's movements after 1998. Marion had said she wanted no contact, therefore Sally is legally not entitled to this information. If Marion walked into a police station today, and said here I am, here is proof, I want no information shared, not even the location of the police station, then that is all Sally would be entitled to.

 

[Mel 1303]

I think you can travel though pretty freely on land between countries. And yes if she was just asked to present it, then no records will ever show up anything other than those longer haul flights. And she was a teacher, it seems a very intelligent lady and if she knew what she was doing she was probably very cautious not to leave a paper trail. The Internet was not the existence it was today but am sure she had heard of it and could have hazarded a guess that one day we would move to a more digital age. She probably had good hindsight. I think she would have taken every measure possible to keep her profile to its lowest.

RSBM Marion seemed to be doing a lot not to leave a trail. She changed her name, and travelled under a name no one knew about. She let no one come to the airport, so no one would find out the name there. She slipped into the country, to withdraw $5000 a day. She could have organised to take it out in a lump sum, but that would have required paperwork. There was certainly a plan, and a well devised one.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

Wow.. You're good.!lol. A lot of thought and good ideas for someone who has since been catching up.

As for florabella I think it is likely she knew this woman and maybe got the name from her. Maybe... I think any link to her ends there thiugh in terms of her disappearance and there is a chance she is no longer alive.

I think either Sally made a mistake with the telephone call time or Marion was not in Tunbridge Wells, but perhaps at the airport. I can think of no other explanation if it was in fact her on the flight back.

I totally agree with the fernand thing. No remakel could leave since 1997 without it being documented. F remakel is clearly in Luxembourg cos that is where they found him! for him to have met Marion previously he would have had to be travelling under a different name but using his real one in the ad. Or what I tbink is more likely is the catfish idea.. She could have been told by him he was a footballer, fell for it and changed her name to it. Who knows....the commitment ceremony is one idea.

And mental health... You hit the nail on the head. Handwriting experts, associations, psychics even aplenty.... Maybe it was out of Marion's character to do what she did. But they said she did things very fast, hastily, some have said she didn't seem herself before she left... So why not bring in a psychologist, experts of varying mental health conditions.. who would easily be able to give their opinion on Marion's behaviour before her disappearance. But no.. Wouldn't fit the comfortable narrative they have. She could have had a breakdown which lead to her just taking off and changing her name in space of a few months. Disassociation.. A variety of onset conditions that could lead her to doing something out of character. She went to the Dr 3 times before leaving.. How do we know this was not for mental health reasons or to be prescribed medication.? She could have been diagnosed with anything from bipolar disorder to any number of things or be suffering it without a diagnosis.. No Dr who had diagnosed her would be able to divulge that unless that had been considered and the police started to look into requesting documents that were health related. But this is one aspect which has not been mentioned... but mental health is a huge thing these days I am very surprised if your leaving no stone unturned you just decide it was not in her nature, without considering there was something else going on which could have changed her attitude and behaviour.

The mental health aspect is interesting but it would be very uncommon for a serious condition like disassociation or bi-polar to go undiagnosed until someone was in their 50's. Marion doesnt appear to have had major emotional disturbance, alcohol or drug use that would suggest she was living with undiagnosed issues.

In 1997 a GP could not have managed someone with psychological concerns (even mild). Marion would have been referred to a pyschologist (or admitted to hospital if her symptoms were serious) and only a physciatrist could prescribe drugs. It wasnt until the Rudd government that Medicare was relaxed on anti-depressants to allow GPs to prescribe them (but only low doses).

 

[JLZ]

The mental health aspect is interesting but it would be very uncommon for a serious condition like disassociation or bi-polar to go undiagnosed until someone was in their 50's. Marion doesnt appear to have had major emotional disturbance, alcohol or drug use that would suggest she was living with undiagnosed issues.

In 1997 a GP could not have managed someone with psychological concerns (even mild). Marion would have been referred to a pyschologist (or admitted to hospital if her symptoms were serious) and only a physciatrist could prescribe drugs. It wasnt until the Rudd government that Medicare was relaxed on anti-depressants to allow GPs to prescribe them (but only low doses).

My GP was prescribing me antidepressants from the early 2000s; well before the Rudd government. In the second half of the 1990s, not sure the exact year, another GP wanted to prescribe me an antidepressant, but I declined. (Queensland.)

 

[Sparkles5777]

The NCAT decision is now available on the NCAT published decisions website. Its a long read. I've had a brief look through it and my very limited understanding is that they are only releasing information that was already deemed available as public record or was known by Sally? Interestingly there is one part that stuck out to me, there is a name they choose to omit because:

"However, the name referred to in Dot Point 3 and 4 on page 1 of the memo should be withheld. In my view the release of this name unconditionally could cause significant issues where persons of that name are approached by third parties. The potential to result in the matters referred to in cl 3(a) and (b) are significant and the public interest considerations against disclosure on balance as a result outweigh those in favour. Partial Release"

So to me it sounds like it's not Mr Remakel but someone else? Mr. Remakels name is already somewhat in the public domain and he has been personally identified by the podcast. Unless this is the courts way of protecting his privacy?

What do you think?

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

The NCAT decision is now available on the NCAT published decisions website. Its a long read. I've had a brief look through it and my very limited understanding is that they are only releasing information that was already deemed available as public record or was known by Sally? Interestingly there is one part that stuck out to me, there is a name they choose to omit because:

"However, the name referred to in Dot Point 3 and 4 on page 1 of the memo should be withheld. In my view the release of this name unconditionally could cause significant issues where persons of that name are approached by third parties. The potential to result in the matters referred to in cl 3(a) and (b) are significant and the public interest considerations against disclosure on balance as a result outweigh those in favour. Partial Release"

So to me it sounds like it's not Mr Remakel but someone else? Mr. Remakels name is already somewhat in the public domain and he has been personally identified by the podcast. Unless this is the courts way of protecting his privacy?

What do you think?

Ohhh! Great find Sparkles5777!!
I agree I dont think that's about Fernand. I think the person is more likely to be the witness to the passport or the change of name.

 

[Garyb]

The NCAT decision is now available on the NCAT published decisions website. Its a long read. I've had a brief look through it and my very limited understanding is that they are only releasing information that was already deemed available as public record or was known by Sally? Interestingly there is one part that stuck out to me, there is a name they choose to omit because:

"However, the name referred to in Dot Point 3 and 4 on page 1 of the memo should be withheld. In my view the release of this name unconditionally could cause significant issues where persons of that name are approached by third parties. The potential to result in the matters referred to in cl 3(a) and (b) are significant and the public interest considerations against disclosure on balance as a result outweigh those in favour. Partial Release"

So to me it sounds like it's not Mr Remakel but someone else? Mr. Remakels name is already somewhat in the public domain and he has been personally identified by the podcast. Unless this is the courts way of protecting his privacy?

What do you think?

I have just read through the NCAT decision. I think it shows the extent of the investigation carried out, particularly i assume by Garry Sheahan. Seems they made enquiries with all the banks and relevant other govt bodies and institutions.

Seems Sally and channel 7 have got bits and pieces but the rest is still withheld.

Seems likely the name withheld would be the witness to the name change or passport application. Could also be the bank security officer who contacted Marion.

 

[Mjjj14]

In case anyone is wondering what memo they’re talking about - it’s a memo written by Gary Sheehan outlining the investigation to date.

 

[Sparkles5777]

Another interesting part of the NCAT decision is this bit about the incomming passenger card from Marions flight back to Brisbane on the 2nd August:

"However, in my view the release of the name referred to on the top two entries of page 1 of the copy of the card unconditionally could cause significant issues where persons of that name are approached by third parties. The potential to result in the matters referred to in cl 3(a) and (b) are significant and the public interest considerations against disclosure on balance as a result outweigh those in favour. Partial Release (other than the name of the person completing the card)


So someone else's name is written on the incoming passenger card which is why the copy of the card we have seen looks cut off at the top. I don't know what sections is missing from the card. Does anyone know what the cards looks like to see what questions were cut off from what we can see from Marions card? This seems to be to confirm that Marion was in fact travelling back to Brisbane with a companion.

The podcast seems to be a double edged sword for Sally. On one hand it has given her a bigger audience to help her find Marion. On the other hand, it seems the NCAT decisions have taken into account the huge amount of public interest and acknowledges that they won't release names which Sally might have otherwise gotten access to, due to potential unwanted hounding by the public.

 

[Mjjj14]

So someone else's name is written on the incoming passenger card which is why the copy of the card we have seen looks cut off at the top. I don't know what sections is missing from the card. Does anyone know what the cards looks like to see what questions were cut off from what we can see from Marions card? This seems to be to confirm that Marion was in fact travelling back to Brisbane with a companion.

Surely it must have looked different in 1997 because I’m positive it’s never asked me to fill in the details of who I’m travelling with!

I don’t think they would’ve released details like this even if there was no podcast, it goes beyond Marion’s privacy and into someone else’s. I think that’s the same with contents of medical records, even with no podcast they wouldn’t release it. The police still seem to be advocating for Marion’s privacy.

 

[Seriallyaddicted]

Another interesting part of the NCAT decision is this bit about the incomming passenger card from Marions flight back to Brisbane on the 2nd August:

"However, in my view the release of the name referred to on the top two entries of page 1 of the copy of the card unconditionally could cause significant issues where persons of that name are approached by third parties. The potential to result in the matters referred to in cl 3(a) and (b) are significant and the public interest considerations against disclosure on balance as a result outweigh those in favour. Partial Release (other than the name of the person completing the card)


So someone else's name is written on the incoming passenger card which is why the copy of the card we have seen looks cut off at the top. I don't know what sections is missing from the card. Does anyone know what the cards looks like to see what questions were cut off from what we can see from Marions card? This seems to be to confirm that Marion was in fact travelling back to Brisbane with a companion.

The podcast seems to be a double edged sword for Sally. On one hand it has given her a bigger audience to help her find Marion. On the other hand, it seems the NCAT decisions have taken into account the huge amount of public interest and acknowledges that they won't release names which Sally might have otherwise gotten access to, due to potential unwanted hounding by the public.

I don’t think this is right. The first two entries (1 & 2) are for the passenger (Florabella).
What you have referred to from ncat I think is just referring to privacy for her.

 

[Sparkles5777]

Surely it must have looked different in 1997 because I’m positive it’s never asked me to fill in the details of who I’m travelling with!

I don’t think they would’ve released details like this even if there was no podcast, it goes beyond Marion’s privacy and into someone else’s. I think that’s the same with contents of medical records, even with no podcast they wouldn’t release it. The police still seem to be advocating for Marion’s privacy.

Yes actually your right. Maybe the bit that's cut off on the card is the emergency contact details? I'm pretty certain there's a section we have to fill out with that info. Maybe Marion has written someones contact details there and that's what is what was redacted? I wonder who's name she wrote.

 

[sunnynz]

Yes actually your right. Maybe the bit that's cut off on the card is the emergency contact details? I'm pretty certain there's a section we have to fill out with that info. Maybe Marion has written someones contact details there and that's what is what was redacted? I wonder who's name she wrote.

Yep have flown into Australia loads of times and at the top of the card on the back is where you put emergency contact details. Could that be it??

 

[sunnynz]

Another interesting part of the NCAT decision is this bit about the incomming passenger card from Marions flight back to Brisbane on the 2nd August:

"However, in my view the release of the name referred to on the top two entries of page 1 of the copy of the card unconditionally could cause significant issues where persons of that name are approached by third parties. The potential to result in the matters referred to in cl 3(a) and (b) are significant and the public interest considerations against disclosure on balance as a result outweigh those in favour. Partial Release (other than the name of the person completing the card)


So someone else's name is written on the incoming passenger card which is why the copy of the card we have seen looks cut off at the top. I don't know what sections is missing from the card. Does anyone know what the cards looks like to see what questions were cut off from what we can see from Marions card? This seems to be to confirm that Marion was in fact travelling back to Brisbane with a companion.

The podcast seems to be a double edged sword for Sally. On one hand it has given her a bigger audience to help her find Marion. On the other hand, it seems the NCAT decisions have taken into account the huge amount of public interest and acknowledges that they won't release names which Sally might have otherwise gotten access to, due to potential unwanted hounding by the public.

Yes just looked again at the picture of her arrival card and the top of the reverse of the card (section 14) is missing. This is where I’m sure you put emergency contact details. Amazing that police have presumably had this info the whole time. Wonder who it is!

 

[Sparkles5777]

Yes just looked again at the picture of her arrival card and the top of the reverse of the card (section 14) is missing. This is where I’m sure you put emergency contact details. Amazing that police have presumably had this info the whole time. Wonder who it is!

Maybe Marions also just made up a name to write down? It seems like the other details she wrote on the card wern't exactly true either (staying at the Novotel, not being a returning resident etc) so there is a chance whatever she wrote in that section could have been made up too?

 

[Mjjj14]

Yes just looked again at the picture of her arrival card and the top of the reverse of the card (section 14) is missing. This is where I’m sure you put emergency contact details. Amazing that police have presumably had this info the whole time. Wonder who it is!

I would bet that it’s a mystery man (old mate from the art centre is my best guess - 1000000% not Fernand) OR just putting it out there, maybe L.L? Thoughts?

 

[bennythedog]

Here is a link to the NCAT decision if you want to have a read
Leydon v Commissioner of Police - NSW Caselaw

 

[Seriallyaddicted]

Yes just looked again at the picture of her arrival card and the top of the reverse of the card (section 14) is missing. This is where I’m sure you put emergency contact details. Amazing that police have presumably had this info the whole time. Wonder who it is!

Sorry this isn’t right. The NCAT release is for everything on the card (other than the name of the person completing the card)