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

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

Found this 1995 book review in AU law journal— titled: How to Disappear Completely and Never be Found. Includes special section for AU. My local library doesn’t have a copy unfortunately, but would certainly be interesting to know wonder if the suggestions in this book match any of Marions actions.

Sorry not Marion related but I've just finished watching a Netflix doco and this book was mentioned. Apparently murderer Luka Mognotta used it to evade capture.

 

[Itsapuzzle]

Scientology headquarters, East Grinstead .... if you have a look on a map, Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge, Alfriston, etc, they are all rather short trips out of East Grinstead, for a bit of sightseeing while attending the headquarters, easy to return to after day out", starting to really wonder if Marion was staying there. H'mm ....
"The Los Angeles Church, on legendary Sunset Boulevard, will forever hold its place in history as the first Church of Scientology in the world." The Scientology Freedom magazines are distributed to libraries in America, Los Angeles .... we have the disconnecting from family/friends, payment for courses, books, training ...... am looking more into the Scientology angle now since this clue from Los Angeles was revealed .... I'd never really given it much thought before, but now thinking, h'mm, this could very well be how everything began to unravel ...... the Athena School/Montessori ....
Lots of Freedom magazines accessible online, will keep looking around for some clue ... end of Sunday evening babble

 

[bennythedog]

@Itsapuzzle
Interestingly...... when you google "what is scientology" this page comes up in the first couple, and the word "remake" is mentioned twice in just a couple of sentences, spoken by the founder himself......

What is Scientology? article by L. Ron Hubbard

What is Scientology?
In this piercing and forthright essay L. Ron Hubbard not only answers the question, “What is Scientology?” but also spells out the need for spiritual technology. “In your hands, with Scientology, you can remake yourself and remake your fate and luck and rise up from the ashes of misdeeds with new life.”

 

[Sophie-Renee]

But the other stuff on her passenger card was a lie (the Novotel and the date she said she was leaving Aus) so why would any of the rest of it be true?

I’m not sure what you mean that as the wife of an EU national that immigration wouldn’t be an issue? She would still have needed to have a continued term of residence in a European country in order to be gain citizenship. I wonder if the police are able to see spousal visas that have been applied for by Aus citizens? Surely they can?!

Let's see if I can answer you both. Yes there is a good chance that entire passenger card is a lie. I am playing devil's advocate on one side, let's assume it wasn't.. The hotel thing was but there were things on it thst werr true....could any of it worked if Marion was not caught out, being back in Australia? Marrying someone from Luxembourg would still have required a term of residence before being granted full citizenship but I don't think it's as long as it would be for someone who moved with work, for example. That's maybe what Marion underestimated.. But she maybe thought she could still return to Lux in 8 days after tying things up back home. That's just me batting for the side of.. Marion did this without the willingness to deceive airport staff or the authorities more generally...but again.. that is only one side of it.. What is and isn't possible kind of thing.

Yes of available a visa application request would be good idea. Now that they have been able to see the passenger card for probably a lot longer than we have though, this is probably a check they have done if they could do it. Maybe Sally knows the outcome of it and can't say, maybe she doesn't.

 

[bennythedog]

Let's see if I can answer you both. Yes there is a good chance that entire passenger card is a lie. I am playing devil's advocate on one side, let's assume it wasn't.. The hotel thing was but there were things on it thst werr true....could any of it worked if Marion was not caught out, being back in Australia? Marrying someone from Luxembourg would still have required a term of residence before being granted full citizenship but I don't think it's as long as it would be for someone who moved with work, for example. That's maybe what Marion underestimated.. But she maybe thought she could still return to Lux in 8 days after tying things up back home. That's just me batting for the side of.. Marion did this without the willingness to deceive airport staff or the authorities more generally...but again.. that is only one side of it.. What is and isn't possible kind of thing.

Yes of available a visa application request would be good idea. Now that they have been able to see the passenger card for probably a lot longer than we have though, this is probably a check they have done if they could do it. Maybe Sally knows the outcome of it and can't say, maybe she doesn't.

I read this passenger card as a "red herring" designed to keep people off her trail. Although it is interesting to debate whether it is true or not, the whole of the previous 2-3 months, if not more had been a trail of lie after lie, open and covert deception to make sure that no one could make any sense of what was going on if they uncovered anything that Marion laid the plans down for.

It does appear that she was in the UK for some time, but the rest is all questionable. Marion did not tell anyone she changed her name, she did not want to be taken to the airport - where did she go and when, did she go to Lux at all? Is she/was she married, what happened to the Orient Express trip that she was so keen to go on, were there any "little old ladies" to have tea with, particularly if she was saying she was in Tunbridge Wells in a phone box when in fact she may have been en route home when she made the phone call to Sally. My view is that there are so many lies designed to mislead that this whole card is probably made up on purpose to disguise her real intentions and throw anyone trying to find out anything right off her scent.

JMHO

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Would be nice to know the names of the other passengers on the flights and even though it's been a long time, someone might possibly remember a snippet of conversation, ie if she mentioned the school, her kids, starting a new life, and perhaps Luxembourg.
Maybe something stood out.

Maybe some people who were on the flight have photos of their "send off". With Marion and maybe who she was with in the background.

 

[Sophie-Renee]

I read this passenger card as a "red herring" designed to keep people off her trail. Although it is interesting to debate whether it is true or not, the whole of the previous 2-3 months, if not more had been a trail of lie after lie, open and covert deception to make sure that no one could make any sense of what was going on if they uncovered anything that Marion laid the plans down for.

It does appear that she was in the UK for some time, but the rest is all questionable. Marion did not tell anyone she changed her name, she did not want to be taken to the airport - where did she go and when, did she go to Lux at all? Is she/was she married, what happened to the Orient Express trip that she was so keen to go on, were there any "little old ladies" to have tea with, particularly if she was saying she was in Tunbridge Wells in a phone box when in fact she may have been en route home when she made the phone call to Sally. My view is that there are so many lies designed to mislead that this whole card is probably made up on purpose to disguise her real intentions and throw anyone trying to find out anything right off her scent.

JMHO

Exactly . I was more thinking about if it was POSSIBLE..which high chance here that it was indeed a tactic to decieve. Was going with the old "asuume nothing, question everything"..so I suppose I questioned it and a lot of it is on the basis of the Novotel hotel being untrue, also likely to be untrue.

However, flipping onto the passenger card destination...while there is a very good chance Marion never actually intended to go to Luxembourg at all, her choice of destination is interesting. If you are going to throw people off, why not pick a country like Greece, if the card allows you simply to state a country? Why the Grand Duchy of all places? One of the smallest countries in Western Europe (after Vatican City and Monaco, I believe!)..but it is in line with the name Remakel. So Marion knew what she was doing at the very least by tying the country into what is a very rare surname. She knew Remakel was Luxembourgish. To me that says, whether or not she planned to ever go there- there was a connection/ association to Luxembourg/ Remakel whether through her own life or the life of someone she was travelling with. Maybe she knew of Fernand Remakel and that was it...I still believe investigations within Luxembourg itself could connect something or someone to Marion at that time. Could she have met someone in the UK , from Luxembourg and travelled back with them to the Australia..could it be her companions visa application that is required?

It is hard to know if Marion's name at the time could have been recorded on for example a request for citizenship after marriage- because that's the problem..there is no evidence she did marry - certainly any Remakel . The name change can be to absolutely anything- could have been someone's family name , but not their actual surname- or a variant spelling of Remakle, Remacle or anything..

The Los Angeles book of Remakels/ Remacles someone came across earlier is interesting...because on previous Remakel searches the thing that threw me off anyway, was how many were nothing to do with Europe and all based in the US- a place we have no reason to believe Marion had any association with. However, it could be simply someone's family descended from Luxembourg, but were themselves a full US citizen.

While I think it is all likely fabricated a lot of it, why Remakel and why Luxembourg? Why not Schmidt from Germany? I think the ad itself in 1994 is too coincidental given how uncommon Remakel is- I personally think she seen this ad, or was talking to someone who called themselves "Remakel", whether as a means to decieve or not...or an actual Remakel but one she did not meet in Australia and perhaps abandoned her in the UK? She keeps the name purely as means to return and throw people off, changes her name back to something else and who knows what after that...whether she came back alone or with someone else is also key...

 

[Meligator]

Exactly . I was more thinking about if it was POSSIBLE..which high chance here that it was indeed a tactic to decieve. Was going with the old "asuume nothing, question everything"..so I suppose I questioned it and a lot of it is on the basis of the Novotel hotel being untrue, also likely to be untrue.

However, flipping onto the passenger card destination...while there is a very good chance Marion never actually intended to go to Luxembourg at all, her choice of destination is interesting. If you are going to throw people off, why not pick a country like Greece, if the card allows you simply to state a country? Why the Grand Duchy of all places? One of the smallest countries in Western Europe (after Vatican City and Monaco, I believe!)..but it is in line with the name Remakel. So Marion knew what she was doing at the very least by tying the country into what is a very rare surname. She knew Remakel was Luxembourgish. To me that says, whether or not she planned to ever go there- there was a connection/ association to Luxembourg/ Remakel whether through her own life or the life of someone she was travelling with. Maybe she knew of Fernand Remakel and that was it...I still believe investigations within Luxembourg itself could connect something or someone to Marion at that time. Could she have met someone in the UK , from Luxembourg and travelled back with them to the Australia..could it be her companions visa application that is required?

It is hard to know if Marion's name at the time could have been recorded on for example a request for citizenship after marriage- because that's the problem..there is no evidence she did marry - certainly any Remakel . The name change can be to absolutely anything- could have been someone's family name , but not their actual surname- or a variant spelling of Remakle, Remacle or anything..

The Los Angeles book of Remakels/ Remacles someone came across earlier is interesting...because on previous Remakel searches the thing that threw me off anyway, was how many were nothing to do with Europe and all based in the US- a place we have no reason to believe Marion had any association with. However, it could be simply someone's family descended from Luxembourg, but were themselves a full US citizen.

While I think it is all likely fabricated a lot of it, why Remakel and why Luxembourg? Why not Schmidt from Germany? I think the ad itself in 1994 is too coincidental given how uncommon Remakel is- I personally think she seen this ad, or was talking to someone who called themselves "Remakel", whether as a means to decieve or not...or an actual Remakel but one she did not meet in Australia and perhaps abandoned her in the UK? She keeps the name purely as means to return and throw people off, changes her name back to something else and who knows what after that...whether she came back alone or with someone else is also key...

I agree. I also keep thinking about why the passport number on the passenger card would have been filled in by someone other than Marion. Either she was traveling with someone else who filled out that number OR an airport attendant noticed it was left blank and then, and then filled it in for her (not sure if employee would have done this or would they have required she fill it out herself). It’s possible she tried to leave it blank, hoping airport staff didn’t notice the omission. But also possible she had a travel companion.

 

[KiwiNZ]

If she did have a travel companion the Novotel could have been booked in their name. I am not convinced the Novotel wasn’t real even if it was just for 1 night.

 

[KiwiNZ]

Do they have any proof ( postcards etc..) that Marion flew out via japan ? I don’t think Cathay flew via japan in 1997 ( will try and check this) that would have likely been the JAL flight, Cathay flys Hong Kong, uk. When you purchase a ticket you normally purchase a round ticket as it’s the cheapest way, and all on the same airline unless code share, but the code share still takes the same route, ie jal in 1998 flew London to Tokyo, the Air NZ Tokyo to Auckland. Could the reason she didn’t want anyone going to the airport is that she was going to Hong Kong not japan with Cathay pacific and maybe visit the pilot

 

[bennythedog]

Do they have any proof ( postcards etc..) that Marion flew out via japan ? I don’t think Cathay flew via japan in 1997 ( will try and check this) that would have likely been the JAL flight, Cathay flys Hong Kong, uk. When you purchase a ticket you normally purchase a round ticket as it’s the cheapest way, and all on the same airline unless code share, but the code share still takes the same route, ie jal in 1998 flew London to Tokyo, the Air NZ Tokyo to Auckland. Could the reason she didn’t want anyone going to the airport is that she was going to Hong Kong not japan with Cathay pacific and maybe visit the pilot

there was a letter/note written on paper from a japanese hotel which suggested she had flown out through japan

also possible that her return ticket was unusable (with jal/other airline) if it was not used as booked - ie her plans totally fell apart and she came back after a short time rather than after a year that her jal (other) ticket was originally booked for
i don’t remember but perhaps flexible tickets were not so easy back then or it may have been cheaper to book a return flight than amend the original ticket

or perhaps she went on a one way, then returned using the first leg of a return flight to europe but then either never left auz for whatever reason, or the cathey pacific return flight was also one way rather than return if marion knew her intention was not to leave again.

so many more unanswered questions!!

more info about the booked flights - one way or return would be helpful!

 

[Itsapuzzle]

If she did have a travel companion the Novotel could have been booked in their name. I am not convinced the Novotel wasn’t real even if it was just for 1 night.

Completely Brilliant KiwiNZ .... ah ha! Yes, hotel could have been booked in mysterious travelling companion’s name, of course .... I’d never thought of that, and maybe did stay there while they got things sorted.

 

[KiwiNZ]

there was a letter/note written on paper from a japanese hotel which suggested she had flown out through japan

also possible that her return ticket was unusable (with jal/other airline) if it was not used as booked - ie her plans totally fell apart and she came back after a short time rather than after a year that her jal (other) ticket was originally booked for
i don’t remember but perhaps flexible tickets were not so easy back then or it may have been cheaper to book a return flight than amend the original ticket

or perhaps she went on a one way, then returned using the first leg of a return flight to europe but then either never left auz for whatever reason, or the cathey pacific return flight was also one way rather than return if marion knew her intention was not to leave again.

so many more unanswered questions!!

more info about the booked flights - one way or return would be helpful!

It’s a real shame that tracking down the travel agent wasn’t done straight away, I am sure they have privacy policies but for the most part it would have been easy to get the information from them once the situation was explained, I have never had an issue getting information or assistance in the few situations where my husband has been travelling and I have needed to locate his hotel because I forgot, or there was an issue with his flights. The travel agent has ways helped, never said that they couldn’t because of privacy issues and we use different travel agents so it’s not like they know me.

 

[KiwiNZ]

there was a letter/note written on paper from a japanese hotel which suggested she had flown out through japan

also possible that her return ticket was unusable (with jal/other airline) if it was not used as booked - ie her plans totally fell apart and she came back after a short time rather than after a year that her jal (other) ticket was originally booked for
i don’t remember but perhaps flexible tickets were not so easy back then or it may have been cheaper to book a return flight than amend the original ticket

or perhaps she went on a one way, then returned using the first leg of a return flight to europe but then either never left auz for whatever reason, or the cathey pacific return flight was also one way rather than return if marion knew her intention was not to leave again.

so many more unanswered questions!!

more info about the booked flights - one way or return would be helpful!

Agree so many unanswered questions re flights.

 

[Itsapuzzle]

Ah, looks like Scientology has been well researched and investigated by Bryan over the years, these links are from 2016 ...
A Christmas Eve treat: Our man Down Under on Scientology’s antipodean troubles in 2016 | The Underground Bunker
Freedom magazine mentioned here ..... so, maybe it's not this publication ..... I could be on the wrong tram again ....
Bryan Seymour challenges Scientology’s ‘Freedom’ magazine to show itself | The Underground Bunker

 

[sunnynz]

there was a letter/note written on paper from a japanese hotel which suggested she had flown out through japan

She could have got that stationery from anywhere - if this is the only proof that she was in Japan then I don’t think it’s very solid proof. If, as others have previously suggested, Marion had read a book on how to disappear then this is exactly the kind of thing one could do to throw people off the scent.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

It would be interesting to know what books she had been reading,
Perhaps she borrowed books on disappearing, or ones on Luxembourg.
I have no idea how long libraries keep records for.

Or maybe she bought a book over the net.
By 1997, I'd been online for five years and had bought things online.
I think my first buy was a Rezap battery charger which I bought from the Australian Geographic site, 1995 I think.

 

[Seriallyaddicted]

Exactly . I was more thinking about if it was POSSIBLE..which high chance here that it was indeed a tactic to decieve. Was going with the old "asuume nothing, question everything"..so I suppose I questioned it and a lot of it is on the basis of the Novotel hotel being untrue, also likely to be untrue.

However, flipping onto the passenger card destination...while there is a very good chance Marion never actually intended to go to Luxembourg at all, her choice of destination is interesting. If you are going to throw people off, why not pick a country like Greece, if the card allows you simply to state a country? Why the Grand Duchy of all places? One of the smallest countries in Western Europe (after Vatican City and Monaco, I believe!)..but it is in line with the name Remakel. So Marion knew what she was doing at the very least by tying the country into what is a very rare surname. She knew Remakel was Luxembourgish. To me that says, whether or not she planned to ever go there- there was a connection/ association to Luxembourg/ Remakel whether through her own life or the life of someone she was travelling with. Maybe she knew of Fernand Remakel and that was it...I still believe investigations within Luxembourg itself could connect something or someone to Marion at that time. Could she have met someone in the UK , from Luxembourg and travelled back with them to the Australia..could it be her companions visa application that is required?

It is hard to know if Marion's name at the time could have been recorded on for example a request for citizenship after marriage- because that's the problem..there is no evidence she did marry - certainly any Remakel . The name change can be to absolutely anything- could have been someone's family name , but not their actual surname- or a variant spelling of Remakle, Remacle or anything..

The Los Angeles book of Remakels/ Remacles someone came across earlier is interesting...because on previous Remakel searches the thing that threw me off anyway, was how many were nothing to do with Europe and all based in the US- a place we have no reason to believe Marion had any association with. However, it could be simply someone's family descended from Luxembourg, but were themselves a full US citizen.

While I think it is all likely fabricated a lot of it, why Remakel and why Luxembourg? Why not Schmidt from Germany? I think the ad itself in 1994 is too coincidental given how uncommon Remakel is- I personally think she seen this ad, or was talking to someone who called themselves "Remakel", whether as a means to decieve or not...or an actual Remakel but one she did not meet in Australia and perhaps abandoned her in the UK? She keeps the name purely as means to return and throw people off, changes her name back to something else and who knows what after that...whether she came back alone or with someone else is also key...

“or an actual Remakel but one she did not meet in Australia and perhaps abandoned her in the UK?”

But didn’t she change her name in Australia to remakel before she left?

 

[Seriallyaddicted]

I agree. I also keep thinking about why the passport number on the passenger card would have been filled in by someone other than Marion. Either she was traveling with someone else who filled out that number OR an airport attendant noticed it was left blank and then, and then filled it in for her (not sure if employee would have done this or would they have required she fill it out herself). It’s possible she tried to leave it blank, hoping airport staff didn’t notice the omission. But also possible she had a travel companion.

she more than likely didn’t have her passport with her when she filled out the card - probably in her bag above where she was sitting. Done that plenty of times.
Maybe she filled out in a hurry in the queue with a different pen or the security person filled out.

 

[Sophie-Renee]

She did.. But I wonder if she did that before meeting him. A bit mad yes, but would be akin to people today dating online and if she became convinced he was the one.. Maybe they had spoke on the phone, swapped photos and letters... It sounds like she became very very hasty around time she went to the UK and changing her name to signify her commitment to a man she had never met, may have been one example of her not having her wits about her.