Australia Australia - Marion Barter, 51, missing after trip to UK, June 1997 #15

[TootsieFootsie]

Could you please explain who are the water people, first time I’m hearing this. Thanks in advance

It's about a cult up north. Seems to be 7NEWS on video on Facebook, from years ago.

I watched a bit of the video and it's one I saw and we discussed here in depth. Far Eastern Shining or something.

The conclusion was that there was nothing in it and no connection to Marion.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

If you google Marion Barter and water people the facebook results will come up.

 

[DK007]

It's about a cult up north. Seems to be 7NEWS on video on Facebook, from years ago.

I watched a bit of the video and it's one I saw and we discussed here in depth. Far Eastern Shining or something.

The conclusion was that there was nothing in it and no connection to Marion.

Thank you

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Lol, it’s hilarious that after everything we’ve learned about a certain con artist through the entire prolonged inquest, people STILL want to mention the cult.

MB leaving to join a cult is a narrative that only benefits the people who failed Marion over the years.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Lol, it’s hilarious that after everything we’ve learned about a certain con artist through the entire prolonged inquest, people STILL want to mention the cult.

I know But not everyone has been following as long as we have.

I just wonder if there is something going on behind the scenes. First the latest inquest, and then someone puts something about a cult up on a current ? MPMB page.
What next, a few more sightings of Marion. My hinky metre is working overtime.

 

[KiwiNZ]

I know But not everyone has been following as long as we have.

I just wonder if there is something going on behind the scenes. First the latest inquest, and then someone puts something about a cult up on a current ? MPMB page.
What next, a few more sightings of Marion. My hinky metre is working overtime.

I couldn’t find the comment on the MBMP page, unless they removed it.

They have removed quite a few comments mostly anyone who suggested they were going a bit far with the witness bashing

Looking forward to the next podcast which I assume will shed light on their take on JH’s statement.

 

[Mamasleuthin]

I couldn’t find the comment on the MBMP page, unless they removed it.

They have removed quite a few comments mostly anyone who suggested they were going a bit far with the witness bashing

Looking forward to the next podcast which I assume will shed light on their take on JH’s statement.

They removed the quote as it’s not there anymore. Someone definitely trying to change or control the narrative!

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Yeah, someone who repeatedly said they had no memory suddenly popping up with new ‘evidence’ that ‘blames the victim’ is extremely suspicious.

The new ‘evidence’ sounds a lot like what the police/bank originally wanted everyone to think… Marion was an erratic women who disappeared by choice on a whim.

I noticed they’re trying to create distance from, ‘she followed a man overseas’.

Because now that they located that man, they’re leaning towards the story ‘she wore a hibiscus in her hair, changed her name to something ‘free like a flower’, and sounded flip while she withdrew all her money to ‘find herself’.

It’s almost like they can’t use the story, ‘she went overseas with dreams of being a dancer’ because it’s been done too many times

 

[KiwiNZ]

Yeah, someone who repeatedly said they had no memory suddenly popping up with new ‘evidence’ that ‘blames the victim’ is extremely suspicious.

The new ‘evidence’ sounds a lot like what the police/bank originally wanted everyone to think… Marion was an erratic women who disappeared by choice on a whim.

I noticed they’re trying to create distance from, ‘she followed a man overseas’.

Because now that they located that man, they’re leaning towards the story ‘she wore a hibiscus in her hair, changed her name to something ‘free like a flower’, and sounded flip while she withdrew all her money to ‘find herself’.

It’s almost like they can’t use the story, ‘she went overseas with dreams of being a dancer’ because it’s been done too many times

Sorry who is "they" ? the police ? - trying to get on the same page lol

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Sorry who is "they" ? the police ? - trying to get on the same page lol

Hahaha, short answer is I don't know.

Long answer is that it's been my unpopular view from the beginning that something was NQR about the behaviours of the bank and police, and the information they circulated about Marion (particularly about seeing her, her reasons for leaving, intentions for the money, and how she felt about her family). Perhaps an involvement or agreeing to turn a blind eye for a percentage of the loot? Or simply a gross failure to perform duties.

It's well documented dodgy stuff was happening at the banks in the area at the time Marion disappeared. Former staff/assistant managers/managers have been convicted of defrauding customers, including the elderly and vulnerable. I'm not saying this happened to Marion, but there were bank staff who were committing crimes who might've been open to being used by a con artist.

We must also ask why those particular bank branches were chosen? Why weren't her withdrawals made in Brisbane or Grafton or anywhere else in Australia? Why was Byron Bay so instrumental? Was it simply because it's a town accustomed to transient people so no one would take notice? Or because whoever was involved knew it well and had connections?

It's also strange the main police officer involved in Marion's case had been working for 20 years, claimed in court he had no idea about missing person procedure, and resigned just 5 years after her disappearance, to go work in sales for retirement villages/timeshare that have a history of questionable activity. It's a well known tactic to avoid public scrutiny by quietly retiring officers rather than firing them and be exposed for mistakes and indiscretions.

And I will never NEVER forget there were police around 2006 that insisted Marion was seen in 1997 and again recently. They blocked the federal Missing Persons unit from releasing Marion's campaign where she would be the face of Missing Persons. We know this from the emails obtained by the podcast through FOI - that email exchange was super sketchy. We must ask who was at risk if that campaign saw the light of day in 2006?

And now we know even Smith is questioning a potential link between the bank and police.
I don't know who RB roped into his scheme, but my hunch is that he did.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I believe the witness believes it was Marion she saw in the bank.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

I believe the witness believes it was Marion she saw in the bank.

For sure! But that means she thinks she saw Marion in 1996 when Silverchair was playing at a Byron festival.

 

[KiwiNZ]

Hahaha, short answer is I don't know.

Long answer is that it's been my unpopular view from the beginning that something was NQR about the behaviours of the bank and police, and the information they circulated about Marion (particularly about seeing her, her reasons for leaving, intentions for the money, and how she felt about her family). Perhaps an involvement or agreeing to turn a blind eye for a percentage of the loot? Or simply a gross failure to perform duties.

It's well documented dodgy stuff was happening at the banks in the area at the time Marion disappeared. Former staff/assistant managers/managers have been convicted of defrauding customers, including the elderly and vulnerable. I'm not saying this happened to Marion, but there were bank staff who were committing crimes who might've been open to being used by a con artist.

We must also ask why those particular bank branches were chosen? Why weren't her withdrawals made in Brisbane or Grafton or anywhere else in Australia? Why was Byron Bay so instrumental? Was it simply because it's a town accustomed to transient people so no one would take notice? Or because whoever was involved knew it well and had connections?

It's also strange the main police officer involved in Marion's case had been working for 20 years, claimed in court he had no idea about missing person procedure, and resigned just 5 years after her disappearance, to go work in sales for retirement villages/timeshare that have a history of questionable activity. It's a well known tactic to avoid public scrutiny by quietly retiring officers rather than firing them and be exposed for mistakes and indiscretions.

And I will never NEVER forget there were police around 2006 that insisted Marion was seen in 1997 and again recently. They blocked the federal Missing Persons unit from releasing Marion's campaign where she would be the face of Missing Persons. We know this from the emails obtained by the podcast through FOI - that email exchange was super sketchy. We must ask who was at risk if that campaign saw the light of day in 2006?

And now we know even Smith is questioning a potential link between the bank and police.
I don't know who RB roped into his scheme, but my hunch is that he did.

Thanks for the above ( I agree with your sentiment) but in relation to JH's evidence

For JH to change her statement from 2020 and remember MB was the person she served, therefore giving proof of life and confirming it was MB who removed the money ..

1. the police would have had to persuade her to do that (and she didn't really back up anything they claimed "starting a new life" etc...)
or
2. RB persuaded her to do that
or
3. She changed her story to cover her own *** from 1997, but I don't believe that because the police would have never raised this again with her had she not gone back to them.

I don't actually see how MB been the person who withdrew the money or not makes much difference to the overall coroners' findings. (am I missing something)

It might make a difference to RB, because the only other person in the firing line for the withdrawals is DDH

 

[KiwiNZ]

I believe the witness believes it was Marion she saw in the bank.

I do as well, whether she is way off or not is a different matter lol, but I think she believes what she is saying and hasn't made it up for one reason or another.

 

[KiwiNZ]

from TLV Page - And tomorrow and Friday, the inquest resumes with submissions which will be live-streamed.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

For decades she said she couldn’t remember the incident, even when people kept sending her messages about it, police probed her several times as recently as 2020, and she admits to seeing something about the case on TV. None of it registered.

Then she miraculously had her memory jolted by Marion’s billboard photo, which is an old photo.
But at the same time said she COULDN'T remember the client’s hair colour!

Or client's name or any details about transaction.
All she remembers is the hibiscus and a weird alternate name she can't recall.

Then she changed her story again and said the client had brown hair and eyes like the billboard.

She admits it was a very busy time in the bank and Byron was full of people. And her only point of reference for the date is the Homebake festival, but the festival was the year before Marion went missing.

Exactly none of the details she gave correspond with what we know about Marion. There is nothing identifying it as Marion.

She’s just loosely describing a woman with a flower in her hair that was planning to go find herself in Bali. Which could be anyone visiting Byron in 1996!

 

[Deleted member 249471]

What's even weirder is to say she thinks she saw her again, years later. If the incident was so unremarkable that she can't remember anything, including hair colour, what is it that stuck out years later? Was the lady in the course wearing a hibiscus, being flip and speaking about finding herself still?

Again, this could literally be anyone in Byron.
I don't buy it. It doesn't add up.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

For example, if this was a tip to Crime Stoppers, it wouldn't have been included as evidence. It doesn't hold up as proof of a sighting.

There is nothing in her details that make you go, "yes, that's definitely Marion as opposed to any other person" or "that sounds like someone impersonating Marion."

The only reason she's up there is that police were interested in her account since the beginning, and it's remarkable that after years of saying she couldn't remember, she now suddenly does. And that's worth getting on record. IMO.

 

[DK007]

For example, if this was a tip to Crime Stoppers, it wouldn't have been included as evidence. It doesn't hold up as proof of a sighting.

There is nothing in her details that make you go, "yes, that's definitely Marion as opposed to any other person" or "that sounds like someone impersonating Marion."

The only reason she's up there is that police were interested in her account since the beginning, and it's remarkable that after years of saying she couldn't remember, she now suddenly does. And that's worth getting on record. IMO.

If she saw MB at the course years later, I wonder if the police has followed up with the course provider and those who did the course to provide proof or life, if this witness is that convinced it was MB undertaking that course?

 

[Martinie]

If she saw MB at the course years later, I wonder if the police has followed up with the course provider and those who did the course to provide proof or life, if this witness is that convinced it was MB undertaking that course?

I would have thought that they would have done asap! I hope it does lead to something, but with how uncertain she seemed to be about the sighting and what happened, I don't know if they will.