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

[Itsapuzzle]

Direct contact with a missing person by police isnt required though unfortunately. The police identified Marion (or "Marion") via an authorised third party (the bank) which is allowed and actually still is allowed to this day when people go missing. The police did do their job at the time.

It's the laws and requirements around how the police should be identifying missing people, that need to change.

Thanks for that info Sparkles5777, interesting. I agree, change is needed here. And hypothetically, if someone joined/joins something like Scientology, having been brainwashed and appears to want to start a new life, what could/can the Police do about it .... they are bound by law to follow official Police Procedures. Perhaps it is the job of a private investigator to pursue a case such as that further to find answers. Will have a look at the NSW police guidelines from back in the day, and will pop it up here ... or if someone else has it, that'd be great if it could be posted here.
This was an interesting NSW Police campaign back in 1999, and they've placed this quote in the footer of webpage: "It is important for people to be aware that going missing is not a crime and that it is the aim of the New South Wales Police Service to ascertain if the missing person is safe and well."
10 Sep 1999 - Operation Safe and Well - Archived Website - Trove

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

I think if you look at the list of documents that NCAT did or did not allow access too you will see the police did carry out a detailed investigation by Garry Sheahan.

If I remember correctly, Garry Sheahan was not one of the original investigators involved in Marian's disappearance. He came later. Even he admits the errors in policing from the 1990s. If you'd listened to the podcast, you'd know that there is much from the 1990's police investigations which is unconfirmed or poorly documented. Much of the information is contradictory. Even the supposed bank manager is unknown or doesn't remember talking to Marion, and there is no substantiation that anyone actually did speak to Marion. If there were well-documented facts to support any of the early police allegations, Sally wouldn't be where she is today.

In fact, I was listening today to one of the last episodes, and again thought, how weak it was that the only clue they had that Marion was not missing but wanted to run away, was from the bank manager saying he spoke to her by phone. (right?) How easy would it be to pretend to be Marion, especially back then. There were many fewer verification steps than there are now. All someone would have had to do is answer Marion's phone number and say she didn't want to be found.

Dont fall for the sensationalism of the podcast.

I never take commands from strangers.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

In hindsight she would have been better and likely more sucussful had she gone the travel against and shipping company route in the first place as they are not as legally restrictive as the bank and customs. They have their own rules of privacy which can be bent within reason, unlike customs or the bank can’t be.

Excellent point - couldnt agree more.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

Maybe if the police had of carried out a thorough investigation in the first place and actually supported Sally, she wouldn't have had to go down the podcast track! This has been her world for 23years, mostly alone.

The support of the police (particularly Garry Sheehan) of Sally is very clearly there. It just wasnt the support that perhaps Sally wanted. Marion is entitled to leave her old life behind without explanation. Let's consider for a moment that people who walk away from their life often do so to escape abuse and other dangerous/damaging situations. Would you want to police to 'support' an abuser in finding someone who didnt want contact with them?

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

I wonder then if the sealing of a deed poll for 100 years would include whether a deed poll even exists.

For example, census is sealed for 100 years yet you can still search the presence of a name in a census search, without seeing the full details of the census itself. So I wonder, since the problem seems to be that nobody can decide if she is alive or dead is impacting on the release of information to protect her privacy. Could the police even rule out a name change by florabella, by requesting to find out if the florabella remakel name changed again without actually requesting what the name was changed to?

Because if they found she had changed her name again that would surely further the argument that Marion could still be alive and her privacy should be protected. When does the absence of any records to do with florabella for say 7 years... didn't they say no tax returns either warrant a full investigation and release of information to the police at least, to determine if somene is alive or dead?

It begs the question that if they want to protect her privacy, they know something Sally doesn't.. yet it is not enough to be able to say Sally your mother is not a missing person and aside of that we cannot tell you any more.

Police have said that there hasnt been another change of name. The ATO data is unknown. Sally said she was advised by Garry Sheehan that missing persons unit dont have authority to access ATO data and that only AFP have authority to. However there is an AFP document in the NCAT list of documents - it one of the fully redacted ones so its currently unknown what that document is about.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

In fact, I was listening today to one of the last episodes, and again thought, how weak it was that the only clue they had that Marion was not missing but wanted to run away, was from the bank manager saying he spoke to her by phone. (right?) How easy would it be to pretend to be Marion, especially back then. There were many fewer verification steps than there are now. All someone would have had to do is answer Marion's phone number and say she didn't want to be found

That's actually not the case. Bank identification/verification was very rigid and thorough in 1997. The Bank officer who rang Marion would have used the contact details held by the bank and Marion would have been identified (likely 2 wallet 3 non-wallet questions) prior to the conversation being held.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

RSBM- To me, it would be a really odd statement if it were not for the behaviours before Marion left for her trip. Quitting her job, not taking a leave without pay. Selling her house. Giving some of her antique furniture to Owen and Sally, as it will be theirs one day anyway. Putting other things in a shipping container- not a storage unit, but a transportable shipping container, that no one knows the location of. Changing her name by deedpoll, but then only changing her passport- nothing else- like a temporary travel name, all above board- hard to trace but cant get into trouble with the law abroad, but not a forever name. Then she is asked to say something that only Marion would know- maybe on the spot the car was all she could think of?

Another part of Marion's pre-depature behaviour which is really odd is that Marion left no financial provision for her daughters wedding even though she (supposedly) didnt plan to return until a few months before the big day. This seems odd especially as no one in the family knew where she would be during this time or had anyway of contacting her. In this context the message about the car money seems particularly cutting.

 

[KiwiNZ]

Excellent point - couldnt agree more.

Sorry that should of been travel agent and shipping company. Hopefully you read between my terrible grammar / spelling lol

 

[sunnynz]

RSBM Let's consider for a moment that people who walk away from their life often do so to escape abuse and other dangerous/damaging situations. Would you want to police to 'support' an abuser in finding someone who didnt want contact with them?

I would hope that if that were the case then once Marion is located and explained the circumstances then the police would respect her wishes and let sally know to walk away. Sally has said multiple times that if her mum is found to be safe and well and have left of her own accord then she would be respectful of that and stop looking for her as painful as that may be.

 

[JLZ]

Another part of Marion's pre-depature behaviour which is really odd is that Marion left no financial provision for her daughters wedding even though she (supposedly) didnt plan to return until a few months before the big day. This seems odd especially as no one in the family knew where she would be during this time or had anyway of contacting her. In this context the message about the car money seems particularly cutting.

That's an interesting point. Has anything been said about what was Sally's expectation about the funding of the wedding? In theory Sally could have already made it plain to Marion that the couple preferred to finance it themselves.

 

[bje111]

If I remember correctly, Garry Sheahan was not one of the original investigators involved in Marian's disappearance. He came later. Even he admits the errors in policing from the 1990s. If you'd listened to the podcast, you'd know that there is much from the 1990's police investigations which is unconfirmed or poorly documented. Much of the information is contradictory. Even the supposed bank manager is unknown or doesn't remember talking to Marion, and there is no substantiation that anyone actually did speak to Marion. If there were well-documented facts to support any of the early police allegations, Sally wouldn't be where she is today.

In fact, I was listening today to one of the last episodes, and again thought, how weak it was that the only clue they had that Marion was not missing but wanted to run away, was from the bank manager saying he spoke to her by phone. (right?) How easy would it be to pretend to be Marion, especially back then. There were many fewer verification steps than there are now. All someone would have had to do is answer Marion's phone number and say she didn't want to be found.




I never take commands from strangers.

Well said

 

[bje111]

That's actually not the case. Bank identification/verification was very rigid and thorough in 1997. The Bank officer who rang Marion would have used the contact details held by the bank and Marion would have been identified (likely 2 wallet 3 non-wallet questions) prior to the conversation being held.

Hi, to my knowledge, we don't know for certain that absolute protocol was followed. Please correct me if there's evidence to contradict my current understanding. At this stage, I believe it's only an assumption due to lack of NSW Police notation at the time. I worked for an investment bank in the early 90s and was surrounded by people who didn't do their jobs properly, cut corners, were lazy, and would have been fooled by an imposter.

Possibly the identification checks WERE thoroughly conducted and the bank employees were 100 per cent certain that it was Marion withdrawing the funds. However, to date, I believe this hasn't been confirmed (as stated above). Also, is there any real evidence that $5K was withdrawn every day, or was it just the tellers' word to Sally? If there is real evidence of the withdrawals that has been noted here [in Websleuths] apologies in advance, as I have missed that being commented on.

Either she disappeared of her own accord and is still alive, or has since perished; or she met with foul play at around the time of the flight back to Australia. Every single step needs to be thoroughly investigated to determine what exactly happened. If I'd disappeared due to coercion from another party I'd want my family to turn over every stone to find me. Personally I don't believe this is a matter privacy any longer and, as Marion's daughter, Sally has every right to strive to find her.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

Hi, to my knowledge, we don't know for certain that absolute protocol was followed. Please correct me if there's evidence to contradict my current understanding. At this stage, I believe it's only an assumption due to lack of NSW Police notation at the time. I worked for an investment bank in the early 90s and was surrounded by people who didn't do their jobs properly, cut corners, were lazy, and would have been fooled by an imposter.

Possibly the identification checks WERE thoroughly conducted and the bank employees were 100 per cent certain that it was Marion withdrawing the funds. However, to date, I believe this hasn't been confirmed (as stated above). Also, is there any real evidence that $5K was withdrawn every day, or was it just the tellers' word to Sally? If there is real evidence of the withdrawals that has been noted here [in Websleuths] apologies in advance, as I have missed that being commented on.

Either she disappeared of her own accord and is still alive, or has since perished; or she met with foul play at around the time of the flight back to Australia. Every single step needs to be thoroughly investigated to determine what exactly happened. If I'd disappeared due to coercion from another party I'd want my family to turn over every stone to find me. Personally I don't believe this is a matter privacy any longer and, as Marion's daughter, Sally has every right to strive to find her.

No we dont know for certain that protocol was followed, but we also dont know that it wasnt.

I also worked in banking and yes there was variance branch to branch in the way some things were done and there were people who cut corners but not relating to identification because the repercussions are so severe it's an area which is heavily monitored/audited.

People makes mistakes but in order for an imposter to successfully withdraw Marions money they had to fool the various tellers who served them on more than 15 different occassions.

It may have been the manager who made the call to Marion, but he/she would have had to report details to head office and possibly notify other relevant areas (such as disputed transaction, account security, governance).

I completely agree that Sally should strive to find her Mum (wouldnt we all in her position?). However I personally dont agree with what you say about privacy, just because Marion can not be located does not mean she should be stripped of her rights.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

That's an interesting point. Has anything been said about what was Sally's expectation about the funding of the wedding? In theory Sally could have already made it plain to Marion that the couple preferred to finance it themselves.

Yes for sure and for all we know Marion may have given them something at their engagement toward the wedding. Nothing has been said about it (understandable as it's a private matter) but going away, missing the wedding prep and returning just prior to the event strikes me as an odd thing to do.
Having said that we dont know when Sally became engaged - we only know when the party was - so we dont know if the engagement predated Marion putting the house on the market and talking about going overseas. Maybe Marion already had the trip booked.

 

[Garyb]

No we dont know for certain that protocol was followed, but we also dont know that it wasnt.

I also worked in banking and yes there was variance branch to branch in the way some things were done and there were people who cut corners but not relating to identification because the repercussions are so severe it's an area which is heavily monitored/audited.

People makes mistakes but in order for an imposter to successfully withdraw Marions money they had to fool the various tellers who served them on more than 15 different occassions.

It may have been the manager who made the call to Marion, but he/she would have had to report details to head office and possibly notify other relevant areas (such as disputed transaction, account security, governance).

I completely agree that Sally should strive to find her Mum (wouldnt we all in her position?). However I personally dont agree with what you say about privacy, just because Marion can not be located does not mean she should be stripped of her rights.

I agree that the identification process would have been done properly, particularly once the bank was aware of the circumstances. It was done by a senior officer in the branch.

The police cant just ingnore the privacy laws just because Sally wants and a band of poor souls who cant see the through the sensationalism of the podcast think they should.

 

[Meligator]

I don’t think we even know for sure that it was really the police who contacted Sally (didn’t Sally say the call she received from police wasn’t documented in the police file?). It’s possible Marion was alerted to the fact that Sally had contacted police/bank and had an imposter call Sally pretending to be the police.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

I don’t think we even know for sure that it was really the police who contacted Sally (didn’t Sally say the call she received from police wasn’t documented in the police file?). It’s possible Marion was alerted to the fact that Sally had contacted police/bank and had an imposter call Sally pretending to be the police.

It's not illegal to disappear of your own volition but it is illegal to mascarade as a police officer. From Marion's perspective the police must protect her right to disappear so why risk getting into trouble over something easily achieved via proper channels?

The ex-police who contacted the podcast noted that it was common for 'located' to be marked on the file without other details recorded.

 

[Sophie-Renee]

For arguments sake.. If Sally had accepted the word of the police in 1997 or not, have things now not changed. Supposing it could have been proven Marion had said she wanted no contact, is there not an argument to be made that the non sighting of an individual by anyone and in Marion's case no documentation of her under the name either florabella remakel or Marion barter trigger an investigation whereby the police would have reason to believe there was a high chance someone missing for such a long time was possibly dead? If that is then the possible case, it is not so much about whether Sally is told but about what the police can access. For example, would they now not have reason enough to request to look at deed poll records for a woman missing for 23 years? Surely anything still available cannot be held back due to Marion's privacy because the it does not stand the same if a person is dead and that is the whole point... they believe she may well have been murdered.

This is what needs to be determined first. Because they have nothing either way to suggest she is dead or alive they cannot release to Sally. But Idk how it works after. Even if Marion had said at the time she wanted no contact, surely if it became a murder investigation as opposed to a missing person's does that privacy law still apply even in death? At the very least the police should be now able to access everything and anything for a woman who has been untraceable for so long. Unfortunately, it won't be until they can be sure Marion is dead that they can release much to Sally... So in a roundabout way, the less they give her, it at least is going with the premise Marion is alive, because they have no firm evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

To be honest, it's almost impossible to follow the "investigation" and Sally's timeline without listening to the entire series again. All I gathered from the podcast was confusion, lack of documentation, lack of named sources and more confusion. That from the police and from the various agencies of disappeared persons. No, we don't know who or if Marion WAS contacted. We have no idea of protocol. Nothing is substantiated, at least from my perspective. (I do not have perfect recall.) What I do know to be true beyond a doubt is that women disappear by foul play more often than of their own volition. This includes pressure and abuse, and particularly women of Marion's background. The fact that no one seems to know anything, imo, points to foul play or mental illness (and that includes joining a cult.) . . . I keep thinking of the other Australian podcast TEACHER'S PET.

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

And I do not care what the law says, if my child vanished I would stop at nothing to learn why and where and if they were safe. Privacy laws be damned. My mother, not so much.