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

[Deleted member 249471]

Is it 100% certain that Marion’s flight to England did not do a stopover in Japan but Korea instead? The hotel notepaper is of course crucial because it almost certainly puts RB in England with MB. If Marion was trying to keep her tryst secret from her family was it a deliberate or an unwitting mistake? Why not just buy some plain writing paper whilst in Tunbridge Wells?

Her passenger card says Australia > South Korea intending to go to Luxembourg.
His passenger cards says Australia > Japan intending to go to Belgium.
No mention of UK on either card!

There are no records on what happened after, so no, there's no proof she DIDN'T go to Japan.
But given their proximity and his history with Japan, it makes a lot of sense they meet there.
And it was his strategy to prove they weren't together as they flew at different times to different locations.

It's possible investigators think the same. But they must go with the evidence.

Lawyers often apply the evidence to weave a story even if it's not the whole story, in order to get the desired result. For example, it's not necessary for them to prove Marion went to Japan. It's sufficient and more direct, and there's enough evidence to suggest they were both in the UK. They would need to make a few more conjectured leaps to say they met in Japan first (even if it's the truth), and it doesn't provide additional value to the story of his involvement with her.


Yeah, I agree, the notepaper is a conundrum.

If he gave her the notepaper in the UK, it was foolish because it links him to her because he WAS just in Japan and has a known history of going to Narita. And she could've gotten notepaper anywhere such as the places she stayed and wherever she purchased postcards and gifts.

If they both met in Japan and she took it herself, then does it go against the idea she was trying to conceal parts of her trip? Again, why not just buy some wherever she was?

It's times like this that I wonder If Marion knew she was in some kind of trouble and left breadcrumbs?

I don't know. But my bet is on them both being in Japan. It just directly incriminates him to say he gave her the paper in UK. They have to use what they can.

 

[Estelle]

The description was from a police witness statement of a business owner who knew the couple. It is not my description. Ddh retains a very different body type to Marian to this day.

We often put on weight as we grow older so I am open to thinking that in her 50s, DdH could have been thinner. I have always wanted to view the CCTV of the person who used her credit card at the service station to compare with a photo of MB.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

1997 withdrawal info from inquest evidence

Source: MB father's notebook
Mon 18 August two x $500 Byron Bay
Thu 21 August $500 Burleigh Heads
Fri 22 August $500 Burleigh Heads
Sat 23 August $500 Byron Bay
Sun 24 August $500 Byron Bay
Mon 25 August $500 Byron Bay
Tue 26 August $500 Byron Bay
Wed 27 August $500 Byron Bay
Thu 28 August $500 Byron Bay
Wed 15 October the balance of funds, approximately $80k withdrawn Byron Bay

Source: Police notebook entry
15 Oct $80,000 transfer from Byron to another account

Source: Police COPS entry
15 Oct $80k telegraphic transfer, possibly to an overseas account

 

[Deleted member 249471]

Here are the police notebook and COPS entry in full:

22 Oct 1997, 1:15 pm – police notebook entry
“Last transaction from Byron. Transfer $80,000 from account to another account 15 October 1997.”
There are also notes on Marion’s description, mention of State Bank Byron Bank, account and Visa card numbers, details of Ashmore branch Manager, and name of Federal Police with MB arrival date.

22 Oct 1997, 2:37 pm - police COPS entry
“The next of kin is concerned that the POI who is her mother has travelled to England and has returned to Australia on Tue 2 August 1997 and did not contact her upon return. Members of the family have received postcards dated 30 August 1997 from England. Enquiries with bank the POI’s bank indicated that she has acted on her account a number of times including several transactions at Byron Bay. The last transaction was the sum $80,000 by telegraphic transfer possibly to an overseas account. A stop has been placed on the account with a narrative for the POI to contact her daughter as a matter of urgency. At this stage it is not planned to list the POI as a missing as it is believed she is capable of this behaviour. It is not unusual for her to not contact members of the family. She is a 3 times divorced woman in her 50’s and one possible scenario for her behaviour is that she returned to Australia with a companion and has transferred the funds to England to purchase a property there with the view to move to England.”

Worth noting:
Sat 18 Oct - Owens birthday, no one heard form Marion
Sun 19 Oct - Date Sally believes she contacted bank and became aware of withdrawals
Mon 20 Oct - Date Sally believes she drove to Byron to report the bank activity
Wed 22 Oct - Date police believe Sally made report to Byron police

 

[KathPlumber]

Yeah, I agree, the notepaper is a conundrum.

If he gave her the notepaper in the UK, it was foolish because it links him to her because he WAS just in Japan and has a known history of going to Narita. And

It's times like this that I wonder If Marion knew she was in some kind of trouble and left breadcrumbs?

Have definitely wondered this.

 

[KathPlumber]

I also have had silly ‘coded message theories’ about the postcard comment re the “Dutch Dentist and Mazz” but hey probs more likely an inside joke or she was just filling up the postcard and it just sounds weird out of context.

Re DdH, I’ve wondered why they asked her at inquest if she had ever been to Winchester Cathedral. I knew it was the Jane Austen gravesite but they didn’t actually say that at the time and even when I searched here I couldn’t find anyone making the connection. Then there were the recent photos of the JA gravesite on one of the Fb pages. Interesting choice or just made sense idk.

The gaps in the story make it such a cryptic thing that your brain is just wanting so badly to have make sense. Also they make it sadder somehow. I am so sorry for Marion.

I always feel quite the imposter here (ergh no pun intended)’as you are all so knowledgeable and experienced with the case so just wanted to say thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

A few thoughts.
Sally thinks she went to Byron bank and police on Mon 20 Oct.

Still, let's attempt to understand the police version...

The police notebook suggests Sally went in on 22 Oct at 1:15 pm and GC made enquiries with Byron bank, Ashmore branch manager and Federal Police which presumably informed him Marion returned on 2 August.

By 2:37 pm, GC decided Marion shouldn't be a missing person based on, "one possible scenario for her behaviour".

IMO, it does not add up.

"One possible scenario for her behaviour" is not a sighting, and does not indicate the safety and wellbeing of a POI. It's just one theory he had based on his views on divorced women of a certain age. It also self-affirms that there are OTHER possible scenarios but for whatever reason, he did not list those possibilities OR act on them. Such as...

Did Federal Police inform GC that she changed her name? Did GC not think it was unusual? Particularly as family were receiving postards in her real name from England as late as 30 Aug despite her weird name returning to Aus on 2 Aug? Why is GC adamant the $80k was a transfer to another account overseas when no-one else said that, including the bank. Am I mistaken? Didn't the bank say they don't do such transactions?

Doesn't the whole police entry scream STOLEN ID and DRAINING OF ACCOUNTS? If someone is concerned for a person, and you go to police, the first thing they check is unusual bank activity. This was extremely unusual bank activity. No one actually spoke to 'Marion' after the withdrawals to ensure SHE made them.

Okay. I'm properly furious now.

 

[*juniper*]

Did Federal Police inform GC that she changed her name? Did GC not think it was unusual? Particularly as family were receiving postards in her real name from England as late as 30 Aug despite her weird name returning to Aus on 2 Aug? Why is GC adamant the $80k was a transfer to another account overseas when no-one else is sure, including the bank. Am I mistaken? Didn't the bank say they don't do such transactions?

Doesn't the whole police entry scream STOLEN ID and DRAINING OF ACCOUNTS? If someone is concerned for a person, and you go to police, the first thing they check is unusual bank activity. This was extremely unusual bank activity. No one actually spoke to 'Marion' after the withdrawals to ensure SHE made them.

Okay. I'm properly furious now.

Were the authorities, including the Federal Police, aware that MB had changed her name at this time? Sally was advised by a friend that MB had returned to Australia on 2 August 1997, but Sally was not aware of the name change to FNMR until after GS took over the case in 2009.

Why did Sally's friend within Immigration did not tell her about the name change. Is this because MB's immigration record was not updated immediately? It would be useful to have input from an Immigration officer to see if MB's immigration records would have shown her new name immediately, or this is something that could have been updated at a later time?

 

[Deleted member 249471]

This is why I understand Sally's view that she went in two days before GC notes. Because GC seems to have undertaken an awfully quick investigation in just 1 hour and 15 minutes.

You're telling me he immediately dropped whatever he was working on, called around, immediately got through, and spoke to all those people, and they were able to pull up all the necessary records in an hour?

Am missing something?

And after all those calls, he still had enough time to imagine possible scenarios for her behaviour, and settled on the one that revealed his own hatred of older women.

Something is very wrong here.

 

[gymtonic]

1997 withdrawal info from inquest evidence

Source: MB father's notebook
Mon 18 August two x $500 Byron Bay
Thu 21 August $500 Burleigh Heads
Fri 22 August $500 Burleigh Heads
Sat 23 August $500 Byron Bay
Sun 24 August $500 Byron Bay
Mon 25 August $500 Byron Bay
Tue 26 August $500 Byron Bay
Wed 27 August $500 Byron Bay
Thu 28 August $500 Byron Bay
Wed 15 October the balance of funds, approximately $80k withdrawn Byron Bay

Source: Police notebook entry
15 Oct $80,000 transfer from Byron to another account

Source: Police COPS entry
15 Oct $80k telegraphic transfer, possibly to an overseas account

So are we accepting now that the withdrawals were in $500 lots? If so this is puzzling me as up until this point the amounts mentioned at the inquest by several witnesses indicated it was in amounts of $5000. I had "$5,000 withdrawn each day over 3 ½ weeks from MB Colonial State Bank at Byron Bay Branch and 3 days from Burleigh Heads Branch" in my notes from the inquest plus "Paula McKenzie (MisPer) diary note says $95,000 removed from a/c (=19 days)" which doesn't seem to add up. Is it possible that SL's father misheard or accidentally left off a 0? That is a common error to make.

 

[*juniper*]

Yes, something is very wrong. Poor Sally, she has been totally let down by the system.

My theory (MOO) is that RB manipulated MB into changing her name, in order to make her 'disappear' while she was believed to be in the UK. The letter on the Hotel Nikko Narita letterhead was just another part of this scam; to try and make Sally & family waste time looking for MB traveling through Japan.

I don't think that RB ever imagined that Sally would have a contact within Immigration, or that MB's original immigration record would record her departure as it was under a new name.

 

[gymtonic]

Why is GC adamant the $80k was a transfer to another account overseas when no-one else said that, including the bank. Am I mistaken? Didn't the bank say they don't do such transactions?

Just re that bit: I had in my notes from inquest that the transaction was recorded as INT code which was used for both and international transfer and also a transfer between Australian Accounts. I guess if you were told that the transfer was INT then you might initially assume it was an international transfer until it was pointed out that it could be used for both?

 

[gymtonic]

Were the authorities, including the Federal Police, aware that MB had changed her name at this time? Sally was advised by a friend that MB had returned to Australia on 2 August 1997, but Sally was not aware of the name change to FNMR until after GS took over the case in 2009.

Why did Sally's friend within Immigration did not tell her about the name change. Is this because MB's immigration record was not updated immediately? It would be useful to have input from an Immigration officer to see if MB's immigration records would have shown her new name immediately, or this is something that could have been updated at a later time?

Yes...I keep getting puzzled by this info which has been stated several times. If SL was told by a friend in immigration that MB had returned to Australia on 2 August PRIOR to any knowledge of the name change....how did the friend know she had "returned" if they were presumably searching for records in the name MB?! How did they link MB with the departure and arrival cards and passport in the FNMR name at the time? I don't get that either. I can see it being linked in retrospect but not at the time.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

So are we accepting now that the withdrawals were in $500 lots? If so this is puzzling me as up until this point the amounts mentioned at the inquest by several witnesses indicated it was in amounts of $5000. I had "$5,000 withdrawn each day over 3 ½ weeks from MB Colonial State Bank at Byron Bay Branch and 3 days from Burleigh Heads Branch" in my notes from the inquest plus "Paula McKenzie (MisPer) diary note says $95,000 removed from a/c (=19 days)" which doesn't seem to add up. Is it possible that SL's father misheard or accidentally left off a 0? That is a common error to make.

I don't know. You can see the original note in his own handwriting in the most recent inquest video. He wrote $500 many times.

I do know the $500 transactions plus $80K = 90K and that was apparently the contents of that particular account, because he refers to 'the balance' being withdrawn. So I suspect it was her everyday account.

We know Marion had a Visa card, a streamline/everyday account that closed AND a high earning account created the day her mortgage discharged that had the $14k untouched (with contact details for Marion being the bank address in Rye) which remained open until the Ashmore bank manager closed it in 2004 after 7 years of inactivity.

 

[KiwiNZ]

Yes...I keep getting puzzled but this info which has been stated several times. If SL was told by a friend in immigration that MB had returned to Australia on 2 August PRIOR to any knowledge of the name change....how did the friend know she had "returned" if they were presumably searching for records in the name MB?! How did they link MB with the departure and arrival cards and passport in the FNMR name at the time? I don't get that either. I can see it being linked in retrospect but not at the time.

I will need to go back and take a look, but didn't the police claim they told Sally her mother had returned to Aus days after the first visit to the police station

However, if the police only had MB name and not FNMR name then presumable it is all linked (old and new names / passport) and Sally's friend in immigration would have had the same access.

But gets even stranger that even the police didn't note change of name in their records which you would think they would have seen when they searched for MB's return, even if they didn't tell Sally ( or couldn't) there was no reference to it that I could see in their report.

 

[*juniper*]

Yes...I keep getting puzzled but this info which has been stated several times. If SL was told by a friend in immigration that MB had returned to Australia on 2 August PRIOR to any knowledge of the name change....how did the friend know she had "returned" if they were presumably searching for records in the name MB?! How did they link MB with the departure and arrival cards and passport in the FNMR name at the time? I don't get that either. I can see it being linked in retrospect but not at the time.

I have seen references to the Immigration department undertaking a range of Y2K compliance measures during the late 1990s, including the introduction of the new ICSE (Integrated Client Service Environment). I am wondering if MB's departure was recorded to her original name, and updated later to the FNMR name during a data review process.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

A really good theory on why no-one noticed MB's name change until years later.

I keep forgetting there is a difference between passport office and immigration. Her physical passport had a new name, but it took time for that to get to the immigration office (which customs is part of) and for that database to be updated. Even if you had a digital database, they were often bespoke and did NOT automatically 'talk' to one another. Everything was manual and labour intensive in those days.

It was one month between when Marion got a new passport and departed Australia.
It was four months since her departure until anyone checked the immigration system.

So in 1997, if you changed your name and travelled, you immigration record wouldn't show it for at least 5 months!

I bet RB knew this and used it to his advantage somehow.

Were the authorities, including the Federal Police, aware that MB had changed her name at this time? Sally was advised by a friend that MB had returned to Australia on 2 August 1997, but Sally was not aware of the name change to FNMR until after GS took over the case in 2009.

Why did Sally's friend within Immigration did not tell her about the name change. Is this because MB's immigration record was not updated immediately? It would be useful to have input from an Immigration officer to see if MB's immigration records would have shown her new name immediately, or this is something that could have been updated at a later time?

 

[gymtonic]

I have seen references to the Immigration department undertaking a range of Y2K compliance measures during the late 1990s, including the introduction of the new ICSE (Integrated Client Service Environment). I am wondering if MB's departure was recorded to her original name, and updated later to the FNMR name during a data review process.

Except....the documents of the time (departure and arrival cards and passport) were all in the name 'FNMR' so why would it be recorded in the name of 'MB' at the time of exit and entry? There is nothing on the cards that requires a "formerly known as" entry and if the card(s) matches the passport then there is no reason to indicate to the immigration officials of a "formerly known as" name. As it stands, if the immigration friend was searching for records of MB then (theoretically) nothing should come up in searches as no MB left or entered Australia. Perhaps someone with Immigration knowledge could explain how that link was made.

Something (gut feeling) tells me this is important and hasn't been clarified.

 

[Deleted member 249471]

I may be wrong, but when immigration was contacted by police and Sally, they were not checking passenger cards.

They simply saw movement related to her passport. Which was still showing her MB name because the FNMR name hadn't been linked to it yet.

I don't believe passenger cards were digitised yet and were only stored in hardcopy.

We can assume this because if Sally's customs friend saw her passenger cards, he would have freaked out! She never mentions going to UK but says she's going to Luxembourg. On her return, she says she's a married housewife from Luxembourg! If he and Sally knew this in Oct 1997, it would be a very different case.

Can't say for sure but I think it's the airline check-in staff who add this very BASIC info into immigration database. Just passport numbers, dates and possibly flight numbers.

I couldn't understand any of this before, it's only starting to make sense to me know, haha.

If anyone knows more about airline and immigration procedures, we'd love to hear from you!

 

[*juniper*]

Except....the documents of the time (departure and arrival cards and passport) were all in the name 'FNMR' so why would it be recorded in the name of 'MB' at the time of exit and entry? There is nothing on the cards that requires a "formerly known as" entry and if the card(s) matches the passport then there is no reason to indicate to the immigration officials of a "formerly known as" name. As it stands, if the immigration friend was searching for records of MB then (theoretically) nothing should come up in searches as no MB left or entered Australia. Perhaps someone with Immigration knowledge could explain how that link was made.

Something (gut feeling) tells me this is important and hasn't been clarified.

As far as I can tell, MB applied for a new passport on 20 May 1997 and a new passport under the name FNMR was issued 2 days later on 22 May 1997. I believe that the unique number of her new passport was linked to the ID number of previous passport. So, MB traveled under the name of FNMR, filled out her departure card in that name, but the immigration system was working on the passport number, which then linked to her original MB immigration record. Just MOO.