Australia Australia - Marion Barter, 51, missing after trip to UK, Jun 1997 #3

[JLZ]

No it hasnt been established if the contact with the bank security officer was in person. From my experience I would say it was in person because in those days you had to sign an account closure form in order to close an account. Also the info from red cross said she closed the account and withdrew the balance so it suggests she was there to collect the funds.
Either way (sighted or not) bank identification is sufficient.

They didn't necessarily happen at the same time though did they? Even if the withdrawal and closing were done in person, the bank officer who did see her may not have known that there was any question of Marion not being Marion.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

If so, why was case kept open? And then later upgraded to an oficial missing person. And then put on state register? And now put on national register?

Why was the case kept open - because the police support families who cant find those they love and situations change over time.

Why was it made an official missing person. Probably because police could no longer find her.

The state/national thing looks like a communication problem, perhaps the state and national registers are managed separately?

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

They didn't necessarily happen at the same time though did they? Even if the withdrawal and closing were done in person, the bank officer who did see her may not have known that there was any question of Marion not being Marion.

You're absolutely right they may not have known her identify was in any question but the bank officer would have followed identification procedures regardless.
From memory the wording of the red cross info said both the account closure and balance withdrawal happened on 15th Oct.

 

[JLZ]

You're absolutely right they may not have known her identify was in any question but the bank officer would have followed identification procedures regardless.
From memory the wording of the red cross info said both the account closure and balance withdrawal happened on 15th Oct.

I'm thinking that correct identification procedures for transacting on and closing an account may not have been very stringent. Not like the 100-point check for opening one.

I didn't mean the closure and withdrawal didn't necessarily happen at the same time. I meant the securities officer establishing that the client really was Marion wasn't necessarily part of the same incident as the withdrawal-and-closure. It seems to me that if police outsource missing person identification to a bank, they ought to require that the bank sight the person, and, more than that, that the sighting happen at the same time as identity is thoroughly questioned. That's just an opinion; I've no particular qualification for making rules about what police procedure should be.

 

[KiwiNZ]

I thought police needed to sight a missing person in order to deem them found and close the file?

In this case, there's no record of them sighting Marion. They relied on hearsay and just took the bank's word rather than following up and sighting her themselves. So yes, they dismissed her.

It kinda looks as though they assumed she would show up. When she didn't turn up 10 years after going missing, the file was finally looked at and officially classified a missing person's case and put on the NSW missing person's register. This was done because it was clear they had not sighted her nor had it been properly investigated... ie, they realised they dismissed her 10 years ago.

Then when Gary (bless him) showed Sally the documents in an effort to suggest she let it go and move on, is another example of Marion (and Sally) being dismissed.

Even more evidence to suggest they hadn't sighted her, is that police insist the case was never closed. So... if case was never closed... means they never saw her... yet they didn't believe it was worth taking seriously until now... equals they dismissed it over and over again.

I'm not trying to argue. It's a mute point now and not a thing I want to waste time on. I truly AM frustrated that we've lost so much evidence because Marion was dismissed as a man crazy runaway who would eventually show up. I just wanted to clarify I wasn't having a go at Sally. We do and should be able to rely on our authorities.

I'm mostly inclined to think police do a good job and the best they can. This case is obviously a tricky one that has international elements, which are the hardest to get authorities involved in due to jurisdictions and limited resources. I feel the perpetrator knew this. All the reasons why police dismissed Marion is exactly why she was targeted. I feel this would never have happened had the perpetrator believed police would act on it.

To be fair Marion did go to some lengths to create an situation that no one could have anticipated or foreseen what the outcome would be. She changed her name without informing her family and was obviously secretive about a lot of things going on in her life, I don't think the police could have acted much differently and as far as I am aware legally the security guard was able to make the ID.

Had it of been the police that ID her and it was in fact Marion Sally would be getting no assistance now, so in hindsight, the fact that there is some ambiguity around the sighting this has worked in Sally's favour.

I really want Sally to find her mother but I get a little frustrated that people blame the police for not been able to predict where this highly unusual case was going, when it was in fact Marion that CHOSE to change her name and CHOSE to withhold information from her family that could have helped her if this is a situation that was dangerous.

 

[Garyb]

If so, why was case kept open? And then later upgraded to an oficial missing person. And then put on state register? And now put on national register?

But it wasnt kept open it was inactive until Garry Sheahan was approached by Sally who had another look at it then took her off the missing persons register.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

I'm thinking that correct identification procedures for transacting on and closing an account may not have been very stringent. Not like the 100-point check for opening one.

I didn't mean the closure and withdrawal didn't necessarily happen at the same time. I meant the securities officer establishing that the client really was Marion wasn't necessarily part of the same incident as the withdrawal-and-closure. It seems to me that if police outsource missing person identification to a bank, they ought to require that the bank sight the person, and, more than that, that the sighting happen at the same time as identity is thoroughly questioned. That's just an opinion; I've no particular qualification for making rules about what police procedure should be.

Oops sorry my mistake!! The customer has to be identified every interaction with the bank no matter how well they are known. Identification of existing customers isnt documented like the 100pt check but it's just as stringent. She would have been interviewed and her signature/details verified. Account closures during my time required another officer to check/co-sign - may have been different at Colonial though.

 

[JLZ]

Oops sorry my mistake!! The customer has to be identified every interaction with the bank no matter how well they are known. Identification of existing customers isnt documented like the 100pt check but it's just as stringent. She would have been interviewed and her signature/details verified. Account closures during my time required another officer to check/co-sign - may have been different at Colonial though.

The cross-check sounds like it was designed to prevent the wrong account being closed by an administrative mistake of the bank; not so much to prevent identity theft. If the thief had mastered the person's signature. . . ? Did identity theft happen in those days? I don't seem to remember hearing about it until the early 2000s.

Once, working alone in a strange suburb, my bag was stolen. I had no means to get home, no money, cards, anything. I went into the local branch of my bank. I'd never been there before. They figured out which was my account and gave me some money out of it to go on with. It was good of them to take the risk that I wasn't who I said I was.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

This timeline is a rollercoaster of found/not found so forgive me for not being convinced Marion was taken seriously:

1997 - The police record it as an 'occurrence' and do not contact bank.

1997 - Police call Sally and tell her they located Marion who didn’t want anyone to know where she was or what she was doing (https://7news.com.au/original-fyi/t...line-of-marion-barters-disappearance-c-200848). Yet according to Sally in podcast, there was no record of it in file and case remained open.

Honest question, is it customary for police to be confident they found a missing person, but keep file open and keep tabs on the person's location throughout the years? I've never heard of this before. Would they not prefer to use resources on those not found at all? Is it possible whoever called Sally wasn't the police but someone involved in Marion's disappearance? Perhaps you need significant proof to close a case and they just didn't have enough at the time, despite 'locating' her? I have no idea.

2002 - Police receive crime stoppers tip but don't look into it.

2007 - Police finally contact bank, a decade after the 'ocurrance' and supposedly 'locating' her.

2007 - They also upgrade Marion to officially missing and put her on state register. I guess the outcome of bank enquiry was not satisfactory?

2009/10 - Gary takes over case an finally looks into crime stoppers tip.

2010 - Sally finds out police file has been LOST! (https://7news.com.au/original-fyi/t...line-of-marion-barters-disappearance-c-200848).

2011 - Marion is taken off state register but case remains open. Why?

2016 - Case is closed with the view that Marion disappeared intentionally.

2019 - Case reopens to include possible homicide and Marion placed on national register.

Timeline according to: 'I need to know she's okay': Daughter's tireless search for her mother who mysteriously vanished more than 22 years ago'.

I understand the article could be incorrect, I'm just going by what I have access to. If you have links to back up your knowledge or become insiders, I'd honestly welcome it!

Maybe they thought Marion ran off and would eventually show up (like Lyn Dawson's case). Or maybe the case has significant overlap with the alleged child abuse going on at TSS and powerful people are involved (like Sister Cathy Cesnik) ). Just IMO.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

The cross-check sounds like it was designed to prevent the wrong account being closed by an administrative mistake of the bank; not so much to prevent identity theft. If the thief had mastered the person's signature. . . ? Did identity theft happen in those days? I don't seem to remember hearing about it until the early 2000s.

Once, working alone in a strange suburb, my bag was stolen. I had no means to get home, no money, cards, anything. I went into the local branch of my bank. I'd never been there before. They figured out which was my account and gave me some money out of it to go on with. It was good of them to take the risk that I wasn't who I said I was.

Co-signing is also a risk mitigator for staff fraud. I think identity theft has been around forever. No process is infallible, if Marion wasnt well known by staff and an imposter could reproduce her signature and knew her demographic info or had her card and PIN it could be possible. The thing with Marion's situation is that the security officer also handled the sale of her house. An activity that definately required face to face contact and document signing. So the imposter would have to also look similar and have some knowledge of the prior discussions to pull off the swindle.

In the awful situation you were in, your signature could still be verified through the specimen held at the branch you opened your account.

 

[Sophie-Renee]

This timeline is a rollercoaster of found/not found so forgive me for not being convinced Marion was taken seriously:

1997 - The police record it as an 'occurrence' and do not contact bank.

1997 - Police call Sally and tell her they located Marion who didn’t want anyone to know where she was or what she was doing (https://7news.com.au/original-fyi/t...line-of-marion-barters-disappearance-c-200848). Yet according to Sally in podcast, there was no record of it in file and case remained open.

Honest question, is it customary for police to be confident they found a missing person, but keep file open and keep tabs on the person's location throughout the years? I've never heard of this before. Would they not prefer to use resources on those not found at all? Is it possible whoever called Sally wasn't the police but someone involved in Marion's disappearance?

2002 - Police receive crime stoppers tip but don't look into.

2007 - Police finally contact bank, a decade after the 'ocurrance' and supposedly 'locating' her.

2007 - They also upgrade Marion to officially missing and put her on state register. I guess the outcome of bank enquiry was not satisfactory?

2009/10 - Gary takes over case an finally looks into crime stoppers tip.

2010 - Sally finds out police file has been LOST! (https://7news.com.au/original-fyi/t...line-of-marion-barters-disappearance-c-200848).

2011 - Marion is taken off state register but case remains open. Why?

2016 - Case is closed with the view that Marion disappeared intentionally.

2019 - Case reopens to include possible homicide and Marion placed on national register.

Timeline according to: 'I need to know she's okay': Daughter's tireless search for her mother who mysteriously vanished more than 22 years ago'.

I understand the article could be incorrect. If you have links to back up your thoughts or become insiders, I'd honestly welcome it. I'm just going by what I have access to and rules of thread.

Maybe they thought Marion ran off and would eventually show up (like Lyn Dawson's case). Or maybe the case has significant overlap with the alleged child abuse going on at TSS and powerful people are involved (like Sister Cathy Cesnik) ). Just IMO.[/QUA

As I understood it, in 1997 police believed Marion was located due to identification by the bank manager in Ashmore and that no record was asked for this at the time, except for years later (as in after Sally knew of Marion's name change- that there was no record. ) I know documents get destroyed often after 7 years, but I thought that with a police file, they are kept for a lot longer . As for the case remaining open, they may have believed that with Marion saying she wanted no contact from family , there was concern enough there may have been more to it. They maybe kept it open on the off chance they recieved any further information ? This is just a thought though that may be completely wrong. That may not be enough to keep the file open- but who knows.

The crime stoppers tip was followed up, but unfortunately not until about 8 years later. They were able to confirm the person had given a false name, but a real address. The people living at the address knew nothing about the phone call. However, I can only assume the police confirmed they were in fact the people who lived at the address in 2002 and that in that time a previous occupant hadn't since moved out. Anyway, if you give a false name, seems likely he or she wouldn't be keen on giving their real address either. The Armidale area was searched on the back of the 2002 tip- but nothing was found.

My understanding was the bank verification occurred in 1997, when Marion first dissappeared. If Sally was still trying to get her mother onto the missing person's register then maybe as it had been 10 years- (bearing in mind the police at this time may have known about Marion's name change and had reason to believe if she hadn't been in touch even after 10 years that they would look more closely at it . Based on something they discovered then (perhaps the name change, but no activity with that name they put her onto the missing person's list. The problem is, for all we know police have actually made a lot of different checks, but until they have some results, they may not report these checks even to Sally until something were to come of them.

I can't really figure out about all they did after, but maybe in the first 10 years they did what they thought was needed at the time, but after such a long time passed, revisited the file and started to look at it with fresh eyes.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

1997 - The police record it as an 'occurrence' and do not contact bank.
2007 - Police finally contact bank, a decade after the 'ocurrance' and supposedly 'locating' her.

The police did contact the bank in 1997. Both the CBA and Colonial state bank provided information. CBA regarding the 5k withdrawals and the Colonial about the account closure (outlined in the red cross letter).
Police enquiries recieved further information in 2007 from CBA (bank account & credit card), St George and NAB. Then 2008 from QLD teachers credit union and 2011 from Westpac. This is in addition to the information recieved in 1997.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

How do we know this? Can you provide a link / source? Do you mean Salvation Army? Or were the Red Cross also involved?

 

[Sophie-Renee]

The police did contact the bank in 1997. Both the CBA and Colonial state bank provided information. CBA regarding the 5k withdrawals and the Colonial about the account closure (outlined in the red cross letter).
Police enquiries recieved further information in 2007 from CBA (bank account & credit card), St George and NAB. Then 2008 from QLD teachers credit union and 2011 from Westpac. This is in addition to the information recieved in 1997.

I must have missed this. Presumably the follow up information was still referring back to activity by Marion or information held about Marion from 1997, since as far as Sally knows there have been no verified communications or identifications of her mother since then.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Check this out: www.thatslife.com.au/australian-mother-marion-barter-vanished-without-a-trace

To summarise, a week after Marion was reported missing, the police called Sally, ‘We’ve SPOKEN to your mother, she doesn’t want anyone to know where she was or what she’s doing’.

Marion’s Dad went to the Salvation Army for a second opinion. They sent him a letter repeating / confirming what police said. Sally still wasn’t convinced so she contacted Salvation Army again.

They responded with an apology, admitting neither they nor police ever sighted Marion. The police had only received the information from a phone call (in this source it appears police spoke to 'Marion' directly, not the bank, thus it's not sufficient proof of ID).

Here’s where it gets really interesting, but I can’t link as it's a FB post...Google Marion Barter Salvation Army.

In 2016, Sally says police took back that Marion was ever ‘located’. They claim it was a typo and should have read ‘assumed missing on own account’. Assumed because she left her residence of her own accord, sold her house, and changed her name, so case was closed. They confirmed Marion was never actually ‘located’.

Sally also has a Salvation Army report saying they never located Marion.

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

post deleted because of excellent posts by Peralta. Thanks for answering my questions!

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Here’s where it gets really interesting. . . .

My grandmother taught me to say "interesting" when I really didn't like something but had to say something nice Thank you, Peralta, for your excellent posts and for saying clearly the facts I heard in the podcast.

Which takes me back to dangerous attitudes regarding missing women. The examples are endless in podcast land.

As someone who conducted business in the 1990s. I imagine I could have withdrawn money from my bank with a check and ID. There were no pin numbers (at least in US.) My face was never checked, really. My name was. Did it match the checks. It was believed, for the most part, that if you had a check and looked respectable, you could cash that check. (as a withdrawal) Australia may have been different. I never made a "withdrawal." I wrote a check. Checkbooks were as valuable to a thief as electronic theft is now.

As for identifying Marion on the phone, I routinely pretend I'm my 90 year old mother. I conduct business with insurance, her bank, even Medicare. Because it's easier than telling them I'm her daughter, and that she has dementia, and I have power of attorney. When you speak with authority (or lie with impunity) anything is possible. Those of you who think the bank must have been scrupulous in its identification of Marion live in a different world than I do.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

How do we know this? Can you provide a link / source? Do you mean Salvation Army? Or were the Red Cross also involved?

Yes i meant the Salvation army missing person service not the red cross.

The info comes from the NCAT document. It's very informative and worth a read.

 

[Itsapuzzle]

Just came across this, having a read through it now, very good summary of Marion's case. Most excellent.
Disappearance of Marion Barter - EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki

 

[JLZ]

Co-signing is also a risk mitigator for staff fraud. I think identity theft has been around forever. No process is infallible, if Marion wasnt well known by staff and an imposter could reproduce her signature and knew her demographic info or had her card and PIN it could be possible. The thing with Marion's situation is that the security officer also handled the sale of her house. An activity that definately required face to face contact and document signing. So the imposter would have to also look similar and have some knowledge of the prior discussions to pull off the swindle.

In the awful situation you were in, your signature could still be verified through the specimen held at the branch you opened your account.

That's it, no process is infallible, and what's necessary and adequate for financial risk management isn't necessarily adequate for the investigation of whether an impersonation has occurred. Allowing that the security officer knew Marion well enough to recognize her by sight, it's not certain the security officer ever saw who withdrew from and closed the account, and it's unlikely he or she knew Marion well enough to recognize her voice by telephone.

Is there any more information about what the other banks were communicating up until 2011? Would they be indicating recent activity in one of Marion's names, or would it simply have taken some banks longer than others to reply to inquiries made years before?