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

[Belleandsebastian]

Pretty sure it was TLV and their sleuths who contacted her, not sure why they need to remind the general public not to contact people - below from the TLV page

View attachment 374148

Pretty sure it was TLV and their sleuths who contacted her, not sure why they need to remind the general public not to contact people - below from the TLV page

View attachment 374148

I’m really not sure about the tone of some of these TLV posts lately. They’re not doing themselves any favours at all.

 

[Housemartyn]

There's lots of bitching going on here. Not actually necessary really. Is it?

 

[sah10406]

I’m really not sure about the tone of some of these TLV posts lately. They’re not doing themselves any favours at all.

J seems to feel the same about the TLV FB page, judging by a couple of recent pointed comments on the MPMB FB page.

 

[KiwiNZ]

There's lots of bitching going on here. Not actually necessary really. Is it?

your comment is direct and who and what ?

 

[KiwiNZ]

J seems to feel the same about the TLV FB page, judging by a couple of recent pointed comments on the MPMB FB page.

I did wonder if that might be the case in the background, it all seems to have turned a bit feral over there, especially the TLV page.

I personally feel privileged that I as the general public can watch these proceedings from home, but I wonder how long that will last with social media and the public tearing down of witnesses.

Do I think JH's testimony was of any help - no - but I don't really feel comfortable with the way she has been spoken about especially on the TLV page, that sort of stuff can ruin people's lives, not sure anymore needs ruining in this case. It was the same with the real FR .... anyone who might know something could be afraid to come forward in case they are crucified in the court of public opinion,

I also don't want to stifle people's ability to say what they think and discuss the evidence, but it been on a public and open page (same as this one) its fine line we walk - I have trouble walking it myself !! my comments are not aimed at anyone here because I like to know what you're all thinking but I just wish we could speak our minds without it been so public and possible getting it wrong and hurting someone - but I guess that is the way of the world these days and social media

 

[DK007]

After watching the inquest. I think JH was trying to demonstrate she did her job properly and according to policies and procedures, however I do find it odd she had a flashback seeing Marion’s poster whilst driving from Grafton and then it came back to her? Not sure what to make of her time giving evidence, she was aloof and struggled to give upfront answers when cross examined. She wasn’t clear in her communication….

 

[DK007]

I find it interesting that (supposedly MB) did not have her bank card on her nor requested a replacement card while at the bank, considering how many times she went into the bank to make the withdrawals ? This raises a red flag for me !

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Holy guacamole! Just finished watching the newest inquest evidence

 

[Deleted member 249471]

If we find out that DB of the bank was married to GC or MP of the police, I will lose my mind.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

When she mentioned she lives in Grafton my jaw hit the ground.

 

[hoodunnit]

If we find out that DB of the bank was married to GC or MP of the police, I will lose my mind.

Please refresh my old senior memory! Who are these people of which you speak? And if she lives in Grafton....what's the connection?

 

[Deleted member 249471]

I know it seems JH testimony wasn’t particularly helpful, but it is!

If JH testimony is reliable, it seriously brings into question whether someone was impersonating MB.

For example… a woman with tan skin, brown eyes, who she possible saw years later, around 60s at a ‘return to work’ TAFE course.

If this was Marion, then it suggests she made a new ID for herself but stayed in the area where people recognised her. This new ID would not have been a formal change of name from Marion or Florabella as there are no records of that. But a new ID to ‘return to work’ would suggest a bank account, driver’s licence and insurance, and a superannuation account. How can a regular person like Marion, who has no history of dodging rules or authorities, obtain those things in a devious and unofficial way? If she did it to ‘start a new life away from her family’ then why chose to live so nearby? Why didn’t she end up in Bali or Europe as some people said she intended to?

So, if this is not Marion, then someone that lived in the area was impersonating her that happened to ‘return to work’ on her own name.

Note that Centrelink sometimes requires you to undertake courses for you to keep receiving benefits for which you need a proper ID and bank account.

Alternatively, if JH testimony is made up, why?

 

[KiwiNZ]

I know it seems JH testimony wasn’t particularly helpful, but it is!

If JH testimony is reliable, it seriously brings into question whether someone was impersonating MB.

For example… a woman with tan skin, brown eyes, who she possible saw years later, around 60s at a ‘return to work’ TAFE course.

If this was Marion, then it suggests she made a new ID for herself but stayed in the area where people recognised her. This new ID would not have been a formal change of name from Marion or Florabella as there are no records of that. But a new ID to ‘return to work’ would suggest a bank account, driver’s licence and insurance, and a superannuation account. How can a regular person like Marion, who has no history of dodging rules or authorities, obtain those things in a devious and unofficial way? If she did it to ‘start a new life away from her family’ then why chose to live so nearby? Why didn’t she end up in Bali or Europe as some people said she intended to?

So, if this is not Marion, then someone that lived in the area was impersonating her that happened to ‘return to work’ on her own name.

Note that Centrelink sometimes requires you to undertake courses for you to keep receiving benefits for which you need a proper ID and bank account.

Alternatively, if JH testimony is made up, why?

see I think the opposite, I think IF she is telling the truth and is recalling correctly, and ONLY the photograph triggered her memory, then to me that confirms it was Marion.

I can't imagine seeing a photo of a person whom you have never seen before would trigger a memory, I mean we are saying this woman (JH) had never seen Marion in the bank (she saw someone pretending to be Marion) so how would she recognize Marion herself in the reward photo

I am not sure I believe any of it ... but if it is true and what she says is correct - I personally believe it was Marion

But really this whole last-minute witness has me more confused lol

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Please refresh my old senior memory! Who are these people of which you speak? And if she lives in Grafton....what's the connection?

DB was a staff member at State Bank who was a coworker of the lady who just gave evidence. The evidence said she was married to a police officer who may or may not have worked at Byron Police.

GC was the Byron Police officer who took Sally's report and marked it as an occurrence only. He joined NSW Police in 1977 and retired in 2002. He went on to work as a sales rep for resort/retirement/timeshare properties.

MP was his supervisor who also mades notes on Sally/Marion's file, including 'no further action required until person reported missing'.

There was a lot of discrepancies between the two policemen's notes and things that were unaccounted for. It was due to their notes that Marion's case was cut short and not properly investigated at the time.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Oh and the significance of Grafton is that's where 'Marion' used her Medicare card at an optometrist on 13 August 1997. Allegedly, she arrived in Brisbane, cancelled her RACQ, went to Grafton, went to Byron, then Burleigh Heads, back to Byron, then to Ashmore.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Is this the photo used in the reward posters?

If so, it's an older photo. From the eighties?

Before she departed to the UK, Marion had the slightly shorter hair, her fringe/bangs weren't so blunt cut, and she was older and plumper.

The video footage of the dance she attended was the last image of her. So why did both JH and RB recognise her ‘1980's’ photo but NOT the one’s where she is closer to age and weight to when she went missing?

I agree that something is very amiss.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

We often wondered but now we know for sure… current investigators have been questioning all sorts of people since 2020. I guess most said 'I don't remember' and their statements were so unremarkable that they weren't worth bringing to court.

So it begs the question, why is the bank manager remembering MB, but not the staff who dealt with 'Marion' most?

 

[KiwiNZ]

We often wondered but now we know for sure… current investigators have been questioning all sorts of people since 2020. I guess most said 'I don't remember' and their statements were so unremarkable that they weren't worth bringing to court.

So it begs the question, why is the bank manager remembering MB, but not the staff who dealt with 'Marion' most?

and on the flip side I can't imagine JH wants publicity, by her own account she doesn't like to get involved in things she has " no interest in" so what's the motivation in coming forward?
The reward money .. your not going to get reward money with untruths, that won't help solve the case so what's the point of making it up ?

Good to know they are following up with interviews but who asks about a missing person and shows no photo of the missing person during questioning ???? if they had shown it to her in 2020 then we could have at least ruled out reward!

 

[Deleted member 249471]

You only get the reward if the info you give leads to an arrest? But she didn't implicate anyone, right?

Her evidence was that she sighted Marion, made her suspicious transaction report as required, was given secondhand info by her staff, cooperated with a male police officer requesting report details by fax, and potentially seeing Marion again at a later date.

The gist of her evidence was that she believes Marion withdrew her own money, had plans to find herself, potentially travel and return to work in Australia - nothing suspicious to see here!

None of that sounds like she is trying to get a reward.

But it does sound like she wants to clear her name, imply she did what was required and doesn't feel anything dodgy happened. Her motivation to give evidence, IMO, seems aimed at suggesting Marion retuned and was alive years after.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

IMO, this can mean two things:
1. There is something dodgy going on and she benefits somehow by suggesting she definitely saw Marion at bank AND years after.
Or..
2. She genuinely believes nothing dodgy happened. She genuinely believes she saw Marion at the bank AND years later. But we know that can't be true so perhaps the person she saw on both occasions was NOT Marion but an imposter.
Just speculating.