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

[KiwiNZ]

Would it be such a breech of Marions precious privacy if the police let Sally (and her supporters) know for certain that it was Marion who returned to Australia 2.8.97. They have CCT footage. So much time and effort is being spent comparing handwriting and debating identity protocols.

I am guessing that their lack of communication on this suggests if they have a CCTV footage of a person reentering then it has to be Marion and can not be confirmed due to privacy laws.

If it wasn't Marion but someone using her passport than this would be a fraud case, since it is illegal to travel on someone else passport and no longer a privacy issue for Marion's case. They could then confidently establish that Marion was in danger or had come to harm in the UK.

with the handwriting and the above I have assumed it was Marion.

My thinking is that they are still 50/50 on whether she has purposely disappeared, due to the name change and secrecy from her family around her movements. They could be in big trouble if this turns out to be the case. Had she not changed her name and hidden so much from her family I think this case would have gone a very different way and the information released to the public would be more in line with a typical missing person case. They need to be able to confidently establish something before they can progress down an avenue and they have to be able to prove why they think that line of enquire is valid, I assume that the name change is working against them been able to come up with something to be able to progress this missing persons avenue.

 

[Mel 1303]

Forgive me for being confused:

“If a person is reported missing to police, enquires into their whereabouts will be made by police. Police or a person in authority have to sight the person, even if they have returned home, after they have been reported missing to ensure that they are safe and well."

From NSW Missing Persons Register

As has been posted here numerous times, a person in authority does not need to be a police officer. As per the NSW police handbook. The bank employee, in Ashmore, where she lived, sighted her. Withdrawing the balance of her account. She lived in Ashmore, she was not a passing motorist, or tourist at a visiting branch. This was followed up by a phone call- i.e. there were contact details available to some.
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/631004/nsw_police_force_handbook.pdf
Page 186

 

[Itsapuzzle]

Been looking at old online magazines from USA for scientology/Kenja/Le Courrier International links - found nothing yet .... new thought, could Marion have become a Quaker?? Too nuts, h'mm, maybe. Quaker school here in Tassie .... Tunbridge Wells, Kent .... Quakers in Australia ..... will have a bit of a look into it just to see what it was all about back in '97. Big in America and England, so maybe mentioned in a magazine in LA library .... worth a look, might stumble across something.

 

[Mel 1303]

Forgive me for being confused:

“If a person is reported missing to police, enquires into their whereabouts will be made by police. Police or a person in authority have to sight the person, even if they have returned home, after they have been reported missing to ensure that they are safe and well."

From NSW Missing Persons Register

As has been posted here numerous times, a person in authority does not need to be a police officer. As per the NSW police handbook. The bank employee, in Ashmore, where she lived, sighted her. Withdrawing the balance of her account. She lived in Ashmore, she was not a passing motorist, or tourist at a visiting branch. This was followed up by a phone call- i.e. there were contact details available to some.
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/631004/nsw_police_force_handbook.pdf
Page 186

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

Any reason the email from teachers credit union would be singled out for exclusion?

The decision to withhold says 'appears conflated with acceptance of decision on docs 81, 82 & 84'.
Docs 81, 82 & 84 were not disputed so theres no info about what these docs are. Looks to me as though the decision is saying that Sallys acceptence of the decision (to withhold) of those other documents is also applicable to this document. It doesnt say why unfortunately. That's my take on it anyway.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

I just found it strange that so few banks were mentioned. However, now that AFP Homicide Review have taken the case, anything that was missed should show up in ATO records . . . unless Marion didn't give new banks her tax file number and also didn't complete any further tax returns.

The documents in the NCAT decision document table only cover those which were disputed within the decision hearing. They dont include documents already fully released to Sally, documents Sally chose not to dispute (the decision to withhold), or the documents Sally disputed but then conceded prior to the hearing. Theres much more than what we see in the NCAT decision.

Sorry if it appears I'm nitpicking about this - what I'm trying to say is that the documents in the NCAT decsion table may not be the documents most relevant to the investigation into Marion's disappearence (although they could) these documents are listed because they relate to the dispute the hearing was considering. The documents likely to have the most information about Marion (IMO) will be thise in the accepted decision/conceded group (not covered by the NCAT document).

 

[Itsapuzzle]

Ruling out Quaker .... was a little far fetched

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

Would it be such a breech of Marions precious privacy if the police let Sally (and her supporters) know for certain that it was Marion who returned to Australia 2.8.97. They have CCT footage. So much time and effort is being spent comparing handwriting and debating identity protocols.

The good news is that now Sally has repaired her relationship with police and is herself no longer sharing information with the podcast/supporters she'll probably get to see the CCTV footage - if she hasnt already. I doubt the public will though unless theres an inquest/trial down the track.

 

[JLZ]

The good news is that now Sally has repaired her relationship with police and is herself no longer sharing information with the podcast/supporters she'll probably get to see the CCTV footage - if she hasnt already. I doubt the public will though unless theres an inquest/trial down the track.

From what I've seen of airport CCTV footage, it can be really hard to identify people. However, recognition by family members can be another thing. In my family, we often recognize each other at great distance, where we can't see the face, and can hardly say what it is that we recognize. Something about body movements and the way people hold themselves. So if there's doubt about whether a person on CCTV is Marion, Sally's input could be what's needed.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

From what I've seen of airport CCTV footage, it can be really hard to identify people. However, recognition by family members can be another thing. In my family, we often recognize each other at great distance, where we can't see the face, and can hardly say what it is that we recognize. Something about body movements and the way people hold themselves. So if there's doubt about whether a person on CCTV is Marion, Sally's input could be what's needed.

So true. The sharing of the footage with Sally (as bittersweet as it would be) would be so important for her. Even if it's a fuzzy partially concealed snippet, as you say, she would still recognize elements of her Mum.

I dont think from the police perspective there are any concerns with identity, they've said all along that it was Marion. The doubts over identity are held in the public domain and I dont think grainy from a distance airport CCTV would provide any certainty in that regard (just as the police investigation, bank identification and passenger card handwriting havent).

 

[Itsapuzzle]

Puzzle what did they say/tease about the magazine? Sorry I remember hearing it but cant remember which episode or exactly what was said.

I wonder if it's something to so with the red square conference TSS hosted in 1995? At the annual conference there is a special award (Kurt Hahn prize) and the winner the year Marion was involved was a girl from a Californian school (the Athenian school). Im not sure if the girl was in attendance at the conference but perhaps Marion as one of the hosts presented the prize? There are 200 schools particiating in round square including Chadwick school in Los Angeles- perhaps they included a write up in their school magazine? A long shot but maybe?

Thanks Intrigued ... Athenian Magazines online, full issues, go back to 2007, haven't found anything there re Marion, did find mention of the prize winner in an article mentioning '94, but nothing about Kurt Hahn prize ..... the Chadwick School, Compass Magazine can only find back to 2015, nothing found .... haven't read them all of course, just quick scanning. Seriously, I need a clue .....

 

[KiwiNZ]

Thanks Intrigued ... Athenian Magazines online, full issues, go back to 2007, haven't found anything there re Marion, did find mention of the prize winner in an article mentioning '94, but nothing about Kurt Hahn prize ..... the Chadwick School, Compass Magazine can only find back to 2015, nothing found .... haven't read them all of course, just quick scanning. Seriously, I need a clue .....

there is this website where you can look at back issues of magazines, quite a few hits for Remakel but nothing I have found that I think is linked to Marion. But you may want to take a look if you haven't already

remakel – issuu Search

 

[Itsapuzzle]

there is this website where you can look at back issues of magazines, quite a few hits for Remakel but nothing I have found that I think is linked to Marion. But you may want to take a look if you haven't already

remakel – issuu Search

How wonderful, thanks KiwiNZ, heading there now ......
Searching now .... finding a lot of pieces of furniture named Florabella .... still looking Hey, this search facility is really good isn't it; finds the search word in so many publications, brilliant.

 

[KiwiNZ]

How wonderful, thanks KiwiNZ, heading there now ......
Searching now .... finding a lot of pieces of furniture named Florabella .... still looking Hey, this search facility is really good isn't it; finds the search word in so many publications, brilliant.

Hoping you will find something I have missed, I got a lot of Remakel hits but nothing I could link to the case, hopefully I have missed something. Looks like the publications only go back 8 years though. Fingers crossed you find something.

 

[Sophie-Renee]

As has been posted here numerous times, a person in authority does not need to be a police officer. As per the NSW police handbook. The bank employee, in Ashmore, where she lived, sighted her. Withdrawing the balance of her account. She lived in Ashmore, she was not a passing motorist, or tourist at a visiting branch. This was followed up by a phone call- i.e. there were contact details available to some.
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/631004/nsw_police_force_handbook.pdf
Page 186

As far as this argument as to whether it was or was not Marion withdrawing money upon her return goes, the issue has been over can we take the word of the police when they are recieving it from the bank? Was it just a phone call or physical sighting or both etc..
To my understanding it was a bank security officer at Ashmore who allegedly (and I say allegedly as we have never heard first hand from the person who made the sighting), verified her identity and a telephone call who spoke to Marion over the phone? This was I believe the colonial at Ashmore?

Even if we play devil's advocate and doubt this account - though I am unsure why the police would make it up-what about the commonwealth employee in byron Bay, the day Sally reported Marion missing? Sally herself spoke to someone at byron Bay who told her when he saw Marion's photo that it rang a bell. They must be seeing many faces in the course of a day, but I do believe if one face sticks with them would be more likely someone taking out an unusually large sum of money or a transaction which required him to ask for I. D or get his senior to authorise it. Also am sure if Marion was visiting the bank many many times in a short space of time, you would start recognising an increasingly familiar face you had not seen before. I think he did not want to say too much due to confidentiality, but to hint to Sally he did recognise Marion and had seen her. Why didn't he just say no sorry doesn't ring any bells? It may have not been a positive statement, but I think that because her photo did seem to ring bells is no coincidence. How can both Ashmore and byron Bay get it wrong? I think the person taking from her account both times was indeed, Marion. I think after October 15th emptying of her account is when things began to change and Marion's track is lost..

 

[Sparkles5777]

Any reason the email from teachers credit union would be singled out for exclusion?

I'm also curious about this!

 

[KiwiNZ]

As far as this argument as to whether it was or was not Marion withdrawing money upon her return goes, the issue has been over can we take the word of the police when they are recieving it from the bank? Was it just a phone call or physical sighting or both etc..
To my understanding it was a bank security officer at Ashmore who allegedly (and I say allegedly as we have never heard first hand from the person who made the sighting), verified her identity and a telephone call who spoke to Marion over the phone? This was I believe the colonial at Ashmore?

Even if we play devil's advocate and doubt this account - though I am unsure why the police would make it up-what about the commonwealth employee in byron Bay, the day Sally reported Marion missing? Sally herself spoke to someone at byron Bay who told her when he saw Marion's photo that it rang a bell. They must be seeing many faces in the course of a day, but I do believe if one face sticks with them would be more likely someone taking out an unusually large sum of money or a transaction which required him to ask for I. D or get his senior to authorise it. Also am sure if Marion was visiting the bank many many times in a short space of time, you would start recognising an increasingly familiar face you had not seen before. I think he did not want to say too much due to confidentiality, but to hint to Sally he did recognise Marion and had seen her. Why didn't he just say no sorry doesn't ring any bells? It may have not been a positive statement, but I think that because her photo did seem to ring bells is no coincidence. How can both Ashmore and byron Bay get it wrong? I think the person taking from her account both times was indeed, Marion. I think after October 15th emptying of her account is when things began to change and Marion's track is lost..

I agree I think it was Marion taking the money from the account, mainly because if the bank did contact her they must have had an up to date contact number supplied by Marion when she returned from the UK. A thief would not give a contactable number for them to be able to track them down months later, they would give a fake number.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

As has been posted here numerous times, a person in authority does not need to be a police officer. As per the NSW police handbook. The bank employee, in Ashmore, where she lived, sighted her. Withdrawing the balance of her account. She lived in Ashmore, she was not a passing motorist, or tourist at a visiting branch. This was followed up by a phone call- i.e. there were contact details available to some.
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/631004/nsw_police_force_handbook.pdf
Page 186

Yikes. No one is questioning ‘a police or person in authority’. We don’t need the link to handbook.

We DO NEED YOU to post link to the source of this ‘fact’: ”The bank employee, in Ashmore, where she lived, sighted her withdrawing the balance of her account. This was followed up by a phone call- i.e. there were contact details available to some.”

I’m happy to believe it if you show me a source. Otherwise you need to establish that it’s just your theory or opinion

 

[Deleted member 249471]

I know it’s difficult to follow, so let me spell it out so there is hopefully no more confusion on the matter:

PART ONE

No one is arguing the meaning of ‘police or person in authority’.

Some sources (that I’ve previously posted) say the police themselves spoke to Marion directly, on the phone. If that actually happened, then no, neither ‘police or a person of authority’ sighted or sufficiently ID’d Marion.

Other’s believe the bank called Marion.

If you go back to previous posts, someone argued that even if the ‘police or person in authority’ spoke to Marion over phone, it’s not required nor procedure to follow up and make sure someone sees the missing person.

This is when I professed my confusion, and why I posted the item from the NSW Missing Person’s page where it clearly says, “Police or a person in authority have to sight the person, even if they have returned home, after they have been reported missing to ensure that they are safe and well."

It had nothing to do with 'police or a person in authority', but about using eyeballs. Does this make sense?

 

[Deleted member 249471]

PART TWO

Some people claim the police spoke to the bank securities officer, who in turn, positively ID’d Marion. They claim it has already been ‘established’ Marion was sighted and ‘located’.

However, no one on this thread has provided a source for this scenario. A source where police confirm they spoke to securities officer and/or ‘located’ Marion in 1997. Not saying it didn’t happen. I want to believe it. Please, link the source!

Another issue with this scenario is the overwhelming lack of clarity …

Did the bank security officer actually see Marion withdrawing her money? Usually, security officers don’t handle cash, employees do. So, did the security officer actually see it take place, or did they speak to the employee who allegedly assisted Marion, after the fact? So… maybe the security officer didn’t ‘sight’ Marion after all, but the employee did. This is not a person in authority is it?

OR did the security officer or employee only CALL Marion? In which case, that isn’t ‘sighting’ is it? It could have been anyone over the phone, especially in the case of fraud.

Also ‘Marion’ could have been under immense pressure by someone else, hence the need to ensure safety which none of you have taken into consideration in your arguments

Not to mention Marion went to great lengths to cut off ties, so is it really plausible that she gave the bank her new phone number and address?

If you have sources to clarify any of these question, PLEASE SHARE IT WITH US!

I do however, have sources where the police themselves confirm they have never sighted or located Marion and the only reason they closed the case was not because she was seen, but because her behaviour before she disappeared. This lead them to assume she went missing intentionally.

This is a very good article that contains direct police quotes: www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/mystery-of-the-missing-mum/news-story/4b38b0b51994c6cfc636055ff81f4864

<modsnip: Direct quotes or copy/paste of content or images from a paywalled article is a violation of copyright law>

Here is another article with police quotes.. police confirm they assume she willingly disappeared because of her behaviour, not because she was ever sighted:
www.7news.com.au/news/qld/the-lady-vanishes-marion-barters-removal-from-missing-person-database-extraordinary-c-95845