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

[Deleted member 249471]

I don’t know how much more research, source finding and link posting will be sufficient to bust the myth of Marion being seen.

What it is:
Marion’s money was withdrawn from her banks. In the beginning, Sally was told that Marion was apparently called by CBA and identified at Colonial. (Note: not ‘seen’ at Colonial, and we don’t know what ‘identification’ methods were used, could even be another phone call). However, no one’s been able to confirm that the call and identification ever happened, and that it was really Marion at the bank. Sally hasn’t been given this as a possible explanation since 2007. In fact, AFP Missing Person’s publicly state Marion was last seen at a bus terminal on 22 June 1997. AFP get their info from NSW police who handle Marion’s case.

What it’s not:
Marion (or someone impersonating her) was definitely called and seen by banks after withdrawing her money.

What I’m trying to undo:
The fact that it’s been established Marion was called and seen after withdrawing her money.

Could it have happened:
Yep.

Could it have NOT happened:
Yep.

Can we just assume that it happened:
Nope.

What if after the current investigation, it turns out Marion was indeed at the banks:
Cool. Then we’ll know for sure!

I still don’t get it:
Well, imagine other missing person cases and how often people call and write to say ‘I’m sure I’ve seen them at x place alive (or dead)!’ But then investigation can’t determine it was actually them. So we are all forced to take it with a grain of salt.

But this was a police officer saying Marion was identified by a bank:
Yep! It’s still an unsubstantiated sighting because AFP / NSW police currently say Marion was last seen at a bus stop... not a bank.

But then how was Marion’s money withdrawn if no one can say for sure it was her that did it:
That’s the million dollar question. That is essentially, what started this whole investigation.

 

[Sophie-Renee]

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?

Makes perfect sense to me and I for one was under the impression that Marion closed her Ashmore account on 15th October, where it had been set up. So presumably there is evidence it was closed as opposed to just money being drawn out? At the very least I would have assumed in 1997, this would require going directly into the bank and closing it down in person as opposed to over the phone or online as you may be able to do sometimes nowadays due to new technologies.

What is the actual evidence the police have the account was closed down? Records from colonial? What information would they hold, i. e a signature by Marion, a confirmation recorded that identification was produced and what that was? My guess would be if it was closed like they say it was, evidence confirming that closure could also indicate that if enough verification was provided to do that, then it was also enough to confirm Marion had been in the bank herself..

 

[madoodi]

Makes perfect sense to me and I for one was under the impression that Marion closed her Ashmore account on 15th October, where it had been set up. So presumably there is evidence it was closed as opposed to just money being drawn out? At the very least I would have assumed in 1997, this would require going directly into the bank and closing it down in person as opposed to over the phone or online as you may be able to do sometimes nowadays due to new technologies.

What is the actual evidence the police have the account was closed down? Records from colonial? What information would they hold, i. e a signature by Marion, a confirmation recorded that identification was produced and what that was? My guess would be if it was closed like they say it was, evidence confirming that closure could also indicate that if enough verification was provided to do that, then it was also enough to confirm Marion had been in the bank herself..

From my time working at a bank, mind you it was only a few years ago, when someone wanted to close their account, they had to physically come into the branch and be ID'd. On the receipt for closure of the account (of which the bank would retain a copy in its archives, I'm guessing for a certain number of years) it would state the ID provided and the relevant number. So e.g. a drivers licence, the state of issue and the licence number. Along with the customer's signature. This was irrespective of whether we knew who the customer was.
For withdrawals it was similar except, now with eftpos type terminals at teller stations the customer can swipe/insert card and enter their pin. This would not require ID or signature unless you questioned the identity of the person withdrawing, in which case you would need ID. Without a card/pin, ID and signature is required and documented. The pin feature might not have been the case in the 90s though.
And I also know a lot of banks require prior notice if you require a "large" withdrawal. Some need it even for $2000. I am guessing that bank branches back then held much less cash and therefore would need to be notified. This is just a guess and my opinion.

Another thought, and apologies if this has been explored... the comment Marion supposedly made about being angry about Sally not paying the car money into her account- could it be that, if this statement was in fact made, that it was said to signal to Sally that it was in fact her not an imposter withdrawing on her accounts? Almost like a code word for sally to authenticate the message. Because how would a random person know about the car money. Unless, it was not in fact Marion, but someone who was told by Marion that x amount of money should be in the account from the sale of the car... (ok that might be a bit farfetched) .

JMO. IMOO.

 

[madoodi]

Also, can someone please enlighten me on the instance where Marions wallet was stolen. From memory it was a few months before she went to the UK. And the person who stole it apparently looked like her , correct?
I wonder if when she got her new cards/ID etc that was in the wallet, if she did so after changing her name. Surely the stealing of the wallet wasn't "staged" to get new ID, bank cards etc.
Apologies, I have forgotten if this has been covered and is MOO.

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Well, imagine other missing person cases and how often people call and write to say ‘I’m sure I’ve seen them at x place alive (or dead)!’ But then investigation can’t determine it was actually them. So we are all forced to take it with a grain of salt. . . It’s still an unsubstantiated sighting because AFP / NSW police currently say Marion was last seen at a bus stop... not a bank .. . .But then how was Marion’s money withdrawn if no one can say for sure it was her that did it:
That’s the million dollar question. That is essentially, what started this whole investigation.

Peralta, you're a breath of fresh air. Thank you. I can't add anything to your explication. All I can do is reiterate the circumstantial evidence of countless missing persons cases (mostly women) where insufficient or slipshod "proof" became fact. The reason being: the case can be ticked off the list. This is why all "proof" must be examined and confirmed in the new reinvestigation. Anyone who has ever researched anything knows that you need at least two primary accounts before something can even be considered to be true. I learned this in genealogy research. I never trust hearsay until it can be proven with more than one primary source.

And FWIW and IMHO, nothing Peralta has written is opinion. She cites what is known from the podcast, timeline, and other credible sources. That's why it's so helpful here.

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

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 ..... still wondering if Los Angeles is the clue, the home of scientology .... h'mm

That sounds logical. Worth pursuing if you can. Scientology is a big can of worms, ie. of disinformation and secrecy. I had a hairdresser once who went to great lengths to hide the fact from her clients (at least some of us) that she was a Scientologist. Had I shown sympathy or interest to it, she might have let her guard down. She let slip that her daughter went to a Scientology high school. When I followed that with a question, she quickly backtracked and said that, she (hairdresser) was not a Scientologist. It is a almost an impenetrable fortress.

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

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 ..... still wondering if Los Angeles is the clue, the home of scientology .... h'mm

That sounds logical. Worth pursuing if you can. Scientology is a big can of worms, ie. of disinformation and secrecy. I had a hairdresser once who went to great lengths to hide the fact from her clients (at least some of us) that she was a Scientologist. Had I shown sympathy or interest to it, she might have let her guard down. She let slip that her daughter went to a Scientology high school. When I followed that with a question, she quickly backtracked and said that, she (hairdresser) was not a Scientologist. It is a almost an impenetrable fortress.

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

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 ..... still wondering if Los Angeles is the clue, the home of scientology .... h'mm

That sounds logical. Worth pursuing if you can. Scientology is a big can of worms, ie. of disinformation and secrecy. I had a hairdresser once who went to great lengths to hide the fact from her clients (at least some of us) that she was a Scientologist. Had I shown sympathy or interest to it, she might have let her guard down. She let slip that her daughter went to a Scientology high school. When I followed that with a question, she quickly backtracked and said that, she (hairdresser) was not a Scientologist. It is a almost an impenetrable fortress.

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

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 ..... still wondering if Los Angeles is the clue, the home of scientology .... h'mm

That sounds logical. Worth pursuing if you can. Scientology is a big can of worms, ie. of disinformation and secrecy. I had a hairdresser once who went to great lengths to hide the fact from her clients (at least some of us) that she was a Scientologist. Had I shown sympathy or interest to it, she might have let her guard down. She let slip that her daughter went to a Scientology high school. When I followed that with a question, she quickly backtracked and said that, she (hairdresser) was not a Scientologist. It is a almost an impenetrable fortress.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

What is the actual evidence the police have the account was closed down?

if it was closed like they say it was, evidence confirming that closure could also indicate that if enough verification was provided to do that, then it was also enough to confirm Marion had been in the bank herself..

“What is the actual evidence the police have the account was closed down?”

Good point. Back track a bit. What evidence do WE have the account was closed?

“if it was closed like they say it was“

Who are ‘they’? Please provide a link to source, if you have one.

From being on this thread, I too was under the impression the account was closed. However I can’t seem to find a source for it, as is required by websleuths.

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Sorry folks, for the repetition. I have tons of trouble getting Websleuths to cooperate with Safari and Firefox. I deleted what I could, but some of the repeated posts above won't allow editing. urghhhh.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

the comment Marion supposedly made about being angry about Sally not paying the car money into her account- could it be that, if this statement was in fact made, that it was said to signal to Sally that it was in fact her not an imposter withdrawing on her accounts? Almost like a code word for sally to authenticate the message. Because how would a random person know about the car money. Unless, it was not in fact Marion, but someone who was told by Marion that x amount of money should be in the account from the sale of the car... (ok that might be a bit farfetched) .
JMO. IMOO.

This is a very good point! It’s a persuasive potential clue. Who said ‘Marion was angry about the car money’? What’s the source?

Well, I checked, it’s in ep4.... It turns out, it was Jack that said this to Sally and Marion’s sister.

Jack only said it for a short period of time (as opposed to the entire time Marion’s been gone), and it is this that made Marion’s sister give up on investigation and believe Marion was at the bank and didn’t want to be found.

The problem is, neither Jack or Sally know where Jack got this information from.

It’s never come up through any interaction with police. It is not in any of the Salvos letters. Jack kept very thorough notes on all the phone conversations he had with Salvos, and it’s not in those notes either.

In other words, there’s no record of the Salvos or police or bank ever saying such a thing. Only Jack.

Sally believes Jack was confused. After that short period of time Jack said it, he never said it again.

So maybe the bank told police, police told Salvos and Salvos told Jack? Yet there’s zero evidence of any of this, and Jack has not stood by the claim.

On the other hand, maybe Jack was confused or said it in a moment of frustration?

We don’t know. There’s nothing to suggest anyone passed this message on to Jack. No one has been able to substantiate it, let alone wether Marion herself said it.

 

[Sparkles5777]

“What is the actual evidence the police have the account was closed down?”

Good point. Back track a bit. What evidence do WE have the account was closed?

“if it was closed like they say it was“

Who are ‘they’? Please provide a link to source, if you have one.

From being on this thread, I too was under the impression the account was closed. However I can’t seem to find a source for it, as is required by websleuths.

Isn't this due to Privacy laws though? The police may very well have the exact information as to when and how it was closed but are unable to say. Just because WE don't have all the information, doesn't necessarily mean it isnt in the police file. Remember we technically aren't even supposed to know about Marions name change at all - NCAT redacted it in the files they released to Sally.

 

[madoodi]

This is a very good point! It’s a persuasive potential clue. Who said ‘Marion was angry about the car money’? What’s the source?

Well, I checked, it’s in ep4.... It turns out, it was Jack that said this to Sally and Marion’s sister.

Jack only said it for a short period of time (as opposed to the entire time Marion’s been gone), and it is this that made Marion’s sister give up on investigation and believe Marion was at the bank and didn’t want to be found.

The problem is, neither Jack or Sally know where Jack got this information from.

It’s never come up through any interaction with police. It is not in any of the Salvos letters. Jack kept very thorough notes on all the phone conversations he had with Salvos, and it’s not in those notes either.

In other words, there’s no record of the Salvos or police or bank ever saying such a thing. Only Jack.

Sally believes Jack was confused. After that short period of time Jack said it, he never said it again.

So maybe the bank told police, police told Salvos and Salvos told Jack? Yet there’s zero evidence of any of this, and Jack has not stood by the claim.

On the other hand, maybe Jack was confused or said it in a moment of frustration?

We don’t know. There’s nothing to suggest anyone passed this message on to Jack. No one has been able to substantiate it, let alone wether Marion herself said it.

Thank you. Yes, that is why I stated in my post if the "supposed comment" was "in fact made". It was more a speculative comment IF thr comment was indeed made, not questioning the source of the comment.
IMO.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Maybe the LA magazine has a photo of Marion at Tunbridge Wells or somewhere else, maybe with the Florabella Remakel name captioned.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

And FWIW and IMHO, nothing Peralta has written is opinion. She cites what is known from the podcast, timeline, and other credible sources. That's why it's so helpful here.

Every interpretation made here is opinion.

Peralta with many well explained reasons, saying that it is not proven Marion herself was at the bank is her (and im sure, many others) opinion. Me with my reasons, saying it was Marion is my opinion. Neither is, or can be, at this point proven.

The sources are very important. To support opinion you should provide a varied source not a variation of the same source. For example, an interview Sally gives to a magazine doesnt 'support' an opinion made by the podcast because it is the basis of the podcasts theories/opinions. They're two variations of the same source (a personal narrative retold in two different media).
Varied sources present a more supportive arguement for example the identification of Marion at the CBA and the identification of Marion at the Colonial Bank are two separate and independant sources of data regarding identity.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Isn't this due to Privacy laws though? The police may very well have the exact information as to when and how it was closed but are unable to say. Just because WE don't have all the information, doesn't necessarily mean it isnt in the police file. Remember we technically aren't even supposed to know about Marions name change at all - NCAT redacted it in the files they released to Sally.

Nope. Never argued with you whether police do or do not have evidence that Marion’s account was closed. They might! That would be awesome!

You said “if it was closed like they said it was...”

I asked who is “they”? At any point in this investigation, has anyone ever said the account was closed? If so, honest question, who said that?? What’s the source???

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

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

Puzzle it's a bit if a long shot but Sally said when her mum was talking about working overseas she very interested in the Stiener Schools (also called Waldorf schools).
It's an educational approach and there are Stiener/waldorf schools all over the world. They seem to have their own publications, do conferences, and training. This was an online magazine I found - they seem to have heaps of publications/resources
Sharing ideas & enthusiasm! Magazine for creative language teachers and parents at Steiner schools.

A bit of a long shot - but maybe Marion did a Stiener training course while in the UK or Australia and a photo/write up of the course was featured in an 'Stiener around the world' type section of the magazine?

 

[Sparkles5777]

You said “if it was closed like they said it was...”

No that wasn't me that was someone else

Nope. Never argued with you whether police do or do not have evidence that Marion’s account was closed. They might! That would be awesome!

I personally believe the police have far more evidence that what's been given and privacy laws are what's stopping them.

I'm curious to know, let's say Marion shows up tomorrow saying here I am, I chose to go missing. Could she sue Channel 7/Sally for harassment? Defamation? Breach of privacy? For having every second of her personal life open for the whole world to hear? Having had every past lover and friend who ever knew her, dragged into the spotlight to talk about her? I dunno. It makes me feel uncomfortable.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

No that wasn't me that was someone else

I personally believe the police have far more evidence that what's been given and privacy laws are what's stopping them.

I'm curious to know, let's say Marion shows up tomorrow saying here I am, I chose to go missing. Could she sue Channel 7/Sally for harassment? Defamation? Breach of privacy? For having every second of her personal life open for the whole world to hear? Having had every past lover and friend who ever knew her, dragged into the spotlight to talk about her? I dunno. It makes me feel uncomfortable.

Me too. The comments made by the pilots ex-wife and the discussion about it make my skin crawl.

That's why I'm so glad the police have this new investigation. It will achieve an outcome that respects Marions privacy. I was really worried the podcast would smoke her out and treat her like poor Fernand.

I personally believe the police have far more evidence that what's been given and privacy laws are what's stopping them.

It's a fact!
According to the NCAT document the majority of the police file (51 out of 99 documents) is either fully or partially withheld.