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

[Deleted member 249471]

PART THREE

In conclusion:

- we cannot claim ‘it’s been established’ security officer saw or spoke to Marion
- we cannot claim that Marion was seen at the bank
- we cannot claim police located Marion in 1997
- Marion being sighted by a person in authority is pure speculation.

Remember this board is victim friendly and we are obliged to take what victims and their families say happened as true, to the best of their knowledge.

Also, why argue with what the police themselves have said?

Remember this board requires you to post sources when you claim things as ‘established’ and ‘fact’ and ‘as it happened’.

You are welcome to discuss non facts, theories and opinions as long as you disclaim it as such.

If you find a source that overrides anything I’ve said, please post it. We’re all on the same side trying to find Marion. Just try not to perpetuate speculation as fact... it's why we are in this mess right now. A few people insisted on a story without posting sources and now it's a mess to undo and untangle.

 

[JLZ]

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

I believe it was I who asked for the link spelling out the procedures (thanks Mel). Going by that, I wouldn't have thought a bank officer qualified as person in authority; for comparison, school principals qualify, but ordinary teachers apparently don't. So if 'bank security officer' qualifies, it would be by virtue of the specific status, and an ordinary teller, for example, probably wouldn't. Which brings me back to the question of whether the security officer personally sighted Marion after her return from overseas.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

I believe it was I who asked for the link spelling out the procedures (thanks Mel). Going by that, I wouldn't have thought a bank officer qualified as person in authority; for comparison, school principals qualify, but ordinary teachers apparently don't. So if 'bank security officer' qualifies, it would be by virtue of the specific status, and an ordinary teller, for example, probably wouldn't. Which brings me back to the question of whether the security officer personally sighted Marion after her return from overseas.

Fair enough. I was quoted in both responses (not you) so I thought she was responding to me. This made it seem like she had to 'yet again repost the handbook' because I continuously failed to understand, ha.

 

[Sparkles5777]

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).

So what's what's the next step from here in the NCAT case?

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

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

Peralta the source for this information for this comment is the podcast.
Episode 4 (starts about 8 mins in).

In this episode they read passages from the request Jack Wilson sent to the Salvos and the response they send back to him.
Mr Wilson's letter refers to the information police gave the family, that the Commonwealth Bank security officer had contacted Marion by phone and she had said didnt want contact.

The Salvos reply (info provided by police who spoke with the security officer at Colonial Ashmore) is that in addition to what the family knew about CBA, Marion had been identified at a different bank (Colonial) while withdrawing money/closing her account and she spoke there of starting a new life. A passage from the letter says "it was definately your daughter who went in and withdrew the balance"

From my own personal experience. I was a security officer at a bank during that time and I handled cash. Branches in those days (pre-internet banking) were heavily transactional.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

So what's what's the next step from here in the NCAT case?

Good question - I'm wondering the same thing! I saw somewhere (either Sally on Facebook or Bryan in the most recent episode) that the police now have a period of time in which they must either provide the additional info outlined in the decision or lodge an appeal.

It will be very interesting to see what actually does happen next. It looks like the podcast will go into hiatus now as Sally cant share information from the police investigation. If the podcast needs to hold off on their investigation and Sally is feeling more hopeful about her communication with police, perhaps the NCAT stuff wont be as much of a priority now?? Thats what I suspect anyway

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

I believe it was I who asked for the link spelling out the procedures (thanks Mel). Going by that, I wouldn't have thought a bank officer qualified as person in authority; for comparison, school principals qualify, but ordinary teachers apparently don't. So if 'bank security officer' qualifies, it would be by virtue of the specific status, and an ordinary teller, for example, probably wouldn't. Which brings me back to the question of whether the security officer personally sighted Marion after her return from overseas.

A couple of thoughts.
Maybe "securities officer" is a generalization and not a specific job title? If you're the only person with that title it could potentially identify you as the particular staff member and that is a safety risk. They may have used a generic job title to protect the identity of the staff member.

The other thing that bounced around my head when I was reading your comment is that a "person of authority" could be an individual or an entity. Marion was sighted by the Bank a 'person in authority' due to its identification procedures (carried out in this instance by the securities officer).
The personal sighting of Marion by the securities officer at Colonial was 15th Oct - after she returned (talked about in episode 4)

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Marion was sighted by the Bank a 'person in authority' due to its identification procedures (carried out in this instance by the securities officer).
The personal sighting of Marion by the securities officer at Colonial was 15th Oct - after she returned (talked about in episode 4)

Nope. Salvos and police have never said anything about Marion being sighted due to identification procedures. They've given no indication of procedures at all. There's never been any detail provided about how Marion was 'identified' at either bank, despite Sally asking throughout the years. There was also never a mention of 'sighting' Marion at the Colonial bank. Nor it being after Marion returned from Europe. Nor any reference to 1997.

Ep 4 of podcast says that in 1998, the Salvation Army sent Jack a letter saying that Marion was identified withdrawing money at another bank (Colonial) and spoke of starting a new life. They (Salvos) spoke with police who in turn, contacted a security officer at Colonial State bank, Ashmore. After a lengthy conversation they can advise it was definitely Marion that withdrew the balance of her account on 15 October 1990 (!)

To make it even more confusing, there's no record of any of this in the police file. No one including Salvos, NSW Police, AFP or Gary have since been able to confirm it was Marion at the bank or that the bank incidents ever happened.

Gary has confirmed that all the decisions he made regarding Marion's case, do not include these potential bank incidents.

I imagine it's because it can't be proved and would never hold up in court. IMO.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Peralta the source for this information for this comment is the podcast.
Episode 4 (starts about 8 mins in).

In this episode they read passages from the request Jack Wilson sent to the Salvos and the response they send back to him.
Mr Wilson's letter refers to the information police gave the family, that the Commonwealth Bank security officer had contacted Marion by phone and she had said didnt want contact.

The Salvos reply (info provided by police who spoke with the security officer at Colonial Ashmore) is that in addition to what the family knew about CBA, Marion had been identified at a different bank (Colonial) while withdrawing money/closing her account and she spoke there of starting a new life. A passage from the letter says "it was definately your daughter who went in and withdrew the balance"

From my own personal experience. I was a security officer at a bank during that time and I handled cash. Branches in those days (pre-internet banking) were heavily transactional.

This is great I really appreciate it. Thank you!

I listened to whole episode and made notes on the first half if anyone is interested.

It’s worth listening to as there are statements from police that Marion was located again in 2007 (what?!), Gary himself speaks, and there is a lot of info on the inability to prove anyone actually saw and properly ID’d Marion in 1997.

The sighting has been speculated on, but so far no-one has been able to prove it actually happened. Not the Salvation Army, NSW Police, AFP, or Gary. Details of it are not in case file.

In fact, there is significant confusion within the NSW Police on whether or not Marion was located, and also between NSW Police and AFP.

All the decisions Gary made on Marions case, do not include the potential bank incidents which is very revealing.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Episode #4 summary

- 1997, days after Sally reported Marion missing, the police told her they located Marion and she didn’t want anyone to know where she was or what she was doing. Sally asked how they found her but police declined to give details. Police did not mention the banks. There was no official record of this phone call.

- Jack contacted the Salvation Army, told them about money being taken out of account, and asks what identification was made to verify it was Marion. The Salvos tell him bank security had contacted Marion by phone and that she didn’t want her whereabouts to be known. They said bank security were like police and they were satisfied with their identification.

- 1998, the Salvation Army sent Jack a letter saying that Marion was identified withdrawing money at another bank (Colonial) and spoke of starting a new life. They (Salvos) spoke with police who in turn, contacted a security officer at Colonial State bank, Ashmore. After a lengthy conversation they can advise it was definitely Marion that withdrew the balance of her account on 15 October 1990 (!)

- Jack told Sally that the Salvos located Marion who said “tell them to stop looking for me in Byron Bay because I’m far, far away. And I’m angry with Sally because she didn’t put the car sale money in my account.” There’s no record of Salvos saying this to Jack. Sally thinks Jack is confused.

- Podcast goes on to say: the Salvos didn’t actually find Marion, they only spoke to a police officer, who claimed they spoke a bank security officer, who apparently confirmed Marion’s identity, but gave no details as to how they identified her. No authority had actually seen Marion in the flesh or spoken to her face to face to verify that she had really been found. There was no police record of any of this.

- 2003, Sally went back to the Salvos asking if they could search for Marion themselves this time, not just repeat what police said. The searched nationwide and internationally for 3 years.

- 2006, Salvos sent Sally a letter stating all their searches came back negative and Marion could not be found.



It gets a bit messy here….

- July 2007, Sally worked with AFP missing person’s register to launch a campaign to highlight case and get Marion on the register. They cancel at the last minute as NSW Police won’t allow it due to ‘investigative reasons’. The AFP claim they were never told what those reasons were. AFP also sent Sally a letter apologising for the cancellation saying it appeared as though Marion was found by NSW Police.

- 11 July 2007, NSW Police tell Sally over the phone that Marion is not a missing person. But they also didn’t have any details about the 1997 sighting and said they ‘need to find out who took the original occurrence report in 1997, and who called Sally to tell her Marion didn’t want to be found’.

- 11 July 2007, (same day) NSW Police send an email to unknown recipient. It states that on 6 July 2007, Marion’s status was changed from ‘occurrence’ to missing person and that Marion was now being investigated as a missing person. Marion was placed on NSW missing persons register. (!!!)

- 23 July 2007, Sally complains to the AFP. She wants documentation and an explanation from NSW Police, so they AFP pass on her frustrations.

- 27 July 2007, NSW Police officer replied to AFP via an email: “It appears Sally is seeking a scapegoat. I am led to believe that as recently as in the pasts months, Marion was spoken with and refused to make contact with her daughter.”

- 10 Aug 2007, in response to this, the AFP said they knew this was incorrect so they called the officer. The officer said he was informed by someone else that Marion was located recently. The AFP told him he had incorrect information. It appears AFP later confronted NSW Police about this issue.

- 2012, Gary Sheehan removes Marion from NSW missing persons register.

- 2019, Gary, speaking on the podcast, says there are only two reasons you’re allowed to do this remove a person from register. #1 is if missing person is sighted. #2 is if a missing person doesn’t fit the the description of missing and there are no fears for their safety. Gary said his decision is based on #2, he believes Marion’s behaviour meant she intended to remove herself from having contact with her family and that she wasn’t in any grave danger.

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

 

[Itsapuzzle]

Just looking at previous posts here re bank security. Those bank security questions can be pretty obscure, like "what was your first pet", "what was the first street you lived in", "favourite band when young", who knows what Marion chose for her questions, but probably something only she would know, just my thoughts. At the start of the podcast I was thinking it'd have to be a banker involved, three branches involved, maybe relieving there .... but since we've discovered the Colonial Bank involved I've totally flung those thoughts out the window. I think - yes only think - but it must have been Marion at the time, especially taking the largest chunk of money out of a branch near her home where she would have been known, and would have been seen in person by them there. The story goes on from there though, definitely something not right ... maybe brainwashed, hypnotised, coerced, something's gone on from there that needs investigating for sure. Just my thoughts.
PS: Anyone on Facebook wanna ask The Lady Vanishes Podcast for a little clue about the magazine .... h'mm, hey? Tell 'em I sent ya

 

[sunnynz]

Episode #4 summary

- 1997, days after Sally reported Marion missing, the police told her they located Marion and she didn’t want anyone to know where she was or what she was doing. Sally asked how they found her but police declined to give details. Police did not mention the banks. There was no official record of this phone call.

- Jack contacted the Salvation Army, told them about money being taken out of account, and asks what identification was made to verify it was Marion. The Salvos tell him bank security had contacted Marion by phone and that she didn’t want her whereabouts to be known. They said bank security were like police and they were satisfied with their identification.

- 1998, the Salvation Army sent Jack a letter saying that Marion was identified withdrawing money at another bank (Colonial) and spoke of starting a new life. They (Salvos) spoke with police who in turn, contacted a security officer at Colonial State bank, Ashmore. After a lengthy conversation they can advise it was definitely Marion that withdrew the balance of her account on 15 October 1990 (!)

- Jack told Sally that the Salvos located Marion who said “tell them to stop looking for me in Byron Bay because I’m far, far away. And I’m angry with Sally because she didn’t put the car sale money in my account.” There’s no record of Salvos saying this to Jack. Sally thinks Jack is confused.

- Podcast goes on to say: the Salvos didn’t actually find Marion, they only spoke to a police officer, who claimed they spoke a bank security officer, who apparently confirmed Marion’s identity, but gave no details as to how they identified her. No authority had actually seen Marion in the flesh or spoken to her face to face to verify that she had really been found. There was no police record of any of this.

- 2003, Sally went back to the Salvos asking if they could search for Marion themselves this time, not just repeat what police said. The searched nationwide and internationally for 3 years.

- 2006, Salvos sent Sally a letter stating all their searches came back negative and Marion could not be found.



It gets a bit messy here….

- July 2007, Sally worked with AFP missing person’s register to launch a campaign to highlight case and get Marion on the register. They cancel at the last minute as NSW Police won’t allow it due to ‘investigative reasons’. The AFP claim they were never told what those reasons were. AFP also sent Sally a letter apologising for the cancellation saying it appeared as though Marion was found by NSW Police.

- 11 July 2007, NSW Police tell Sally over the phone that Marion is not a missing person. But they also didn’t have any details about the 1997 sighting and said they ‘need to find out who took the original occurrence report in 1997, and who called Sally to tell her Marion didn’t want to be found’.

- 11 July 2007, (same day) NSW Police send an email to unknown recipient. It states that on 6 July 2007, Marion’s status was changed from ‘occurrence’ to missing person and that Marion was now being investigated as a missing person. Marion was placed on NSW missing persons register. (!!!)

- 23 July 2007, Sally complains to the AFP. She wants documentation and an explanation from NSW Police, so they AFP pass on her frustrations.

- 27 July 2007, NSW Police officer replied to AFP via an email: “It appears Sally is seeking a scapegoat. I am led to believe that as recently as in the pasts months, Marion was spoken with and refused to make contact with her daughter.”

- 10 Aug 2007, in response to this, the AFP said they knew this was incorrect so they called the officer. The officer said he was informed by someone else that Marion was located recently. The AFP told him he had incorrect information. It appears AFP later confronted NSW Police about this issue.

- 2012, Gary Sheehan removes Marion from NSW missing persons register.

- 2019, Gary, speaking on the podcast, says there are only two reasons you’re allowed to do this remove a person from register. #1 is if missing person is sighted. #2 is if a missing person doesn’t fit the the description of missing and there are no fears for their safety. Gary said his decision is based on #2, he believes Marion’s behaviour meant she intended to remove herself from having contact with her family and that she wasn’t in any grave danger.

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

Brilliant summary! Good to have this clarified and documented.

 

[Garyb]

We shouldnt forget the Colonial Bank and Commonwealth bank connection . The Colonial bank was taken over by the CBA some time after 1997. Marion banked with the Colonial and it was still the Colonial in Byron bay when the Money was withdrawn and Sally went in to show the photo of her Mum same with the Gold coast branches. The CBA took over the Colonial building as it was better located than its own building in Byron bay.
All Colonial records are now held by the CBA.

 

[Garyb]

Just looking at previous posts here re bank security. Those bank security questions can be pretty obscure, like "what was your first pet", "what was the first street you lived in", "favourite band when young", who knows what Marion chose for her questions, but probably something only she would know, just my thoughts. At the start of the podcast I was thinking it'd have to be a banker involved, three branches involved, maybe relieving there .... but since we've discovered the Colonial Bank involved I've totally flung those thoughts out the window. I think - yes only think - but it must have been Marion at the time, especially taking the largest chunk of money out of a branch near her home where she would have been known, and would have been seen in person by them there. The story goes on from there though, definitely something not right ... maybe brainwashed, hypnotised, coerced, something's gone on from there that needs investigating for sure. Just my thoughts.
PS: Anyone on Facebook wanna ask The Lady Vanishes Podcast for a little clue about the magazine .... h'mm, hey? Tell 'em I sent ya

We shouldnt forget the Colonial Bank and Commonwealth bank connection . The Colonial bank was taken over by the CBA some time after 1997. Marion banked with the Colonial and it was still the Colonial in Byron bay when the Money was withdrawn and Sally went in to show the photo of her Mum same with the Gold coast branches. The CBA took over the Colonial building as it was better located than its own building in Byron bay.
All Colonial records are now held by the CBA.

 

[Itsapuzzle]

We shouldnt forget the Colonial Bank and Commonwealth bank connection . The Colonial bank was taken over by the CBA some time after 1997. Marion banked with the Colonial and it was still the Colonial in Byron bay when the Money was withdrawn and Sally went in to show the photo of her Mum same with the Gold coast branches. The CBA took over the Colonial building as it was better located than its own building in Byron bay.
All Colonial records are now held by the CBA.

Yep, that's where I lost the plot completely with the banking .... think I'll leave that puzzle to the experts/police who have the documentation and can access the files, etc. Episode 13 inferred that Marion banked with Colonial, not the Commonwealth in 1997, so the Commonwealth Bank that Sally went into in 1997 allegedly had nothing to do with Marion's accounts, wrong bank, so I really don't know .... there was mention Marion had Colonial and CBA accounts, not sure, just know it all got very confusing and I didn't know if I was Arthur or Martha after that, Episode 13. Yes, Colonial Bank accounts switched to Commonwealth Bank accounts in 2001 I believe.

 

[Jo3]

Maybe the LA magazine ran a story similar to Marions, change of name, sold house etc., deemed ‘missing of own accord’. If Marion was prey to conman he appears to have been pretty successful and may have repeated his con.

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Seriously, I need a clue .....

Itsapuzzle, Did you see the reference earlier in the thread to the Remakel family genealogy book in the LA library? Was it you that posted that?

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

Salvos and police have never said anything about Marion being sighted due to identification procedures.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm saying that in terms of sighting a missing person, the 'authorized person' could be an entity such as the Bank (or Govt agencies like Centrelink). The reason why the bank (as an entity) would be bestowed such an authority (as opposed to other organizations not deemed 'person of authority') is due the high standard of their identification procedures. In the case of Marion the authorised person who sighted Marion would be 'the bank' not the security officer who chatted to her while serving her after following standard identification procedures presumably with their eyes open.

They've given no indication of procedures at all. There's never been any detail provided about how Marion was 'identified' at either bank, despite Sally asking throughout the years.

And they wont. The bank will only provide the outcome (ie she was identified aligned with procedure we're satisfied it was her), they will not disclose the specifics of the procedure itself. Organisations are protected by the privacy act from divulging specific operating procedures which could risk their ability to operate effectively. This part of the act is explained in the NCAT document (because it forms part of the police case).

To make it even more confusing, there's no record of any of this in the police file. No one including Salvos, NSW Police, AFP or Gary have since been able to confirm it was Marion at the bank or that the bank incidents ever happened. Gary has confirmed that all the decisions he made regarding Marion's case, do not include these potential bank incidents.
I imagine it's because it can't be proved and would never hold up in court. IMO.

That you are aware of, the police are not sharing the full content of their file.

The Salvos letter is an official document from an reputable source (reputable because they are authorized to perform the function and are required to validate their information as opposed to a less-reliable source such as say a tabloid magazines who do not). The fact that the Salvos dont have a record of the activity from so long ago is hardly surprising. The Salvos would be able to authenticate one of their own letters without the original records - you'll notice Salvos dont dispute the original activity they just say they cant find the file.

Sally's 2010 police statement is a record of the 1997 phone call from 'byron bay police'. The AFP document is another record of the phone call from police. It acknowledges Sally's account of events while indicating the occurance was not updated (mentioned in the podcast this isnt uncommon). Sally says the call took place, police do not dispute it happened or what Sally said she was told. I'm not sure what you mean by wouldnt 'hold up in court'? Items tendered to court dont need to be unequivocal, decisions are made on balance.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

All the decisions Gary made on Marions case, do not include the potential bank incidents which is very revealing.

Isnt it just?! I missed that bit!!
Hey Peralta is this statement by Garry in ep 4? I want to go back and listen to his wording.

Do you know by any chance when the Medicare records were retrieved? I know the actual appointments weren't long after her return to Australia - but I'm wondering if police had them up front or if they were retrieved later when the case was looked into again in 2007. Gary also mentions in passing how he went to QLD to meet with the teachers credit union - wild baseless speculation here but if she opened an account and presented the 100pts of identification?? But then if her banking wasnt a exterminator in Gary's decision making I guess not.

 

[Itsapuzzle]

Itsapuzzle, Did you see the reference earlier in the thread to the Remakel family genealogy book in the LA library? Was it you that posted that?

Yes, I 've had a look at that from Josiegirl62, Post #52 , geneology book about the Remakel family, couldn't have a look in it though, but could lead to something, Remakels from Luxembourg. Found nothing yet though. This clue from Los Angeles library, we don't even know if it was a hard copy mag off a shelf there, or if it was something found during an online search of e-magazines at the library. H'mm, tricky. From the clues Bryan gave I'm thinking it is a '97/98 magazine. Maybe mentions an event at Tunbridge Wells at the time, or that area too .... who knows - interested in all the ideas from you websleuths, most excellent, trying them all out, so many possibilities ..... still wondering if Los Angeles is the clue, the home of scientology .... h'mm