Australia Australia - Marion Barter, 51, missing after trip to UK, June 1997 #7

[Belleandsebastian]

Some of DH's most common lines...
"I don't remember"
"I don't recall"
"No"
"Not that I can remember"
"At that time I don't remember"
"Don't remember"

This was all within a 5-10 minute period

 

[Nnbee]

just asking since I'm not watching-- does she really seem like she's lying? Or could it be beginning dementia? Or if she's near my age (70) the 1990's might as well be a thousand years ago. However, I've never forgotten where I lived. Not defending the lady. I'm sure there are tons and tons of secrets in her life.

In my opinion, she seems like she's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she is definitely avoiding whole truths. She never elaborates on a question, it is always one word answers, usually yes or no. She answers very sharply and abruptly, sometimes cutting off the question before it has been asked. Her behaviour is that of a woman who has zero interest in cooperating with police to get to the bottom of the case. If she was innocent, she would be more forthcoming in information or show more emotion in response. Eg " I wish I could remember, but it's too long ago" There never seems to be a moment for her where her emotion changes. For someone who claims they haven't read the evidence or listened to the podcast, she sure doesn't act surprised by any of the information coming out today.

 

[Meligator]

struggling to find the significance…why would he keep going to same places in UK? Is it just like a ritual he likes to repeat over and over or is there something important in those places related to his fraud?

 

[Estelle]

I totally had his 2 marriages prior to Ilona wrong that is for sure!

Janine Leroy? sp*
nicole renue? sp*

And the part about how her daughter told her about him being married 3 times from the news ( NOPE) , podcast (YEP) and trying not to implicate the daughter.

The more I hear from her the more convinced I am that she did have some knowledge of Marion

This is how I took down the names of the first two wives:

Janine Le Roy
Nicole Renault

 

[Estelle]

Some of DH's most common lines...
"I don't remember"
"I don't recall"
"No"
"Not that I can remember"
"At that time I don't remember"
"Don't remember"

This was all within a 5-10 minute period

and "not really".

 

[Passingthru]

Do we know if his kids gave evidence? Or if they will?

 

[Belleandsebastian]

Some of DH's most common lines...
"I don't remember"
"I don't recall"
"No"
"Not that I can remember"
"At that time I don't remember"
"Don't remember"

This was all within a 5-10 minute period

This is how I took down the names of the first two wives:

Janine Le Roy
Nicole Renault

I wonder if these women are still living. Would be quite telling if they also met early demises.

 

[StarrChance]

Or even another 'wife' she doesn't know about. Or kids to support? Did anyone else wonder about the line of questioning right at the beginning about his other 3 wives and then asking Diane if she knew of other children.... hmm

Yes very surprised by that question , I keep wondering about Ilona and her second marriage to Michael John Reid the same year as her divorce from Wouters...

 

[Seabreeze1]

Your husband repeatedly changes his name, he tells you its all above board and you're ok with it? mmmmmm

 

[Belleandsebastian]

I found this site where you can search Belgian archives. There's quite a few Nicole Renaults and Janine Le Roys. I'm sure there are many more sleuths who are better at this than me if anyone wants to take a look.

 

[Belleandsebastian]

I found this site where you can search Belgian archives. There's quite a few Nicole Renaults and Janine Le Roys. I'm sure there are many more sleuths who are better at this than me if anyone wants to take a look.

Whoops... here's the site: Vind genealogische gegevens van Nederlandse en Belgische archieven

 

[Passingthru]

In my opinion, she seems like she's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she is definitely avoiding whole truths. She never elaborates on a question, it is always one word answers, usually yes or no. She answers very sharply and abruptly, sometimes cutting off the question before it has been asked. Her behaviour is that of a woman who has zero interest in cooperating with police to get to the bottom of the case. If she was innocent, she would be more forthcoming in information or show more emotion in response. Eg " I wish I could remember, but it's too long ago" There never seems to be a moment for her where her emotion changes. For someone who claims they haven't read the evidence or listened to the podcast, she sure doesn't act surprised by any of the information coming out today.

I think the complete and utter detachment to the information revealed is what has been bothering me the most. And why I think she’s lying about not having any prior knowledge. Even if she was told recently about his philandering and conman ways, she should have SOME reaction to it right? Even just a flash of anger or disgust. But she doesn’t so much as blink an eye at any of it. It’s like she has known for a long time and has come to peace with it and it’s all water under the bridge.

Also she definitely IMO knows precisely which topics she should not admitting to know about. And the only way to know that is to… well… actually KNOW that.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Due back at 2pm, which is now.

 

[mishy66]

struggling to find the significance…why would he keep going to same places in UK? Is it just like a ritual he likes to repeat over and over or is there something important in those places related to his fraud?

Possible tie to one of his previous marriages maybe other children there, and getting Marion there for some reason

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I don't think she's come to peace with it.

I think she's shocked, and depressed and embarrassed.

 

[ikarka]

My 2c about DdH's credibility:

I'm not surprised that she is saying 'yes', 'no' or 'I don't remember' in response to questions. I've prepped witnesses [not for coronial inquests] before and have always advised them that yes or no is a complete answer to a question and not to elaborate unless required to. People get themselves in trouble by talking too much.

It's not unusual for people to struggle to remember things from even recently let alone 20+ years ago. However what strikes me as odd is how she is definite about some things (definitely never saw any other names on documents around the house) but vague about others (don't remember visiting a PO Box in Ballina). Also that she has "forgotten" quite significant things from one day to the other (not mentioning 3 years of living in the UK yesterday, but today she remembers little details like going to Hastings on a trip with her family). That says to me she may not just be a "poor historian" but deliberately evasive.

As an aside, I bet they have proof/a witness who recalls her visiting a PO Box in Ballina. I doubt it would be put to her so plainly unless that was the case. Same as the erroneous date re the ship. Add this to other weird things - like her being the one to nickname him 'Ric' (huh???) and I really think she's in trouble credibility wise.

 

[Estelle]

In my opinion, she seems like she's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she is definitely avoiding whole truths. She never elaborates on a question, it is always one word answers, usually yes or no. She answers very sharply and abruptly, sometimes cutting off the question before it has been asked. Her behaviour is that of a woman who has zero interest in cooperating with police to get to the bottom of the case. If she was innocent, she would be more forthcoming in information or show more emotion in response. Eg " I wish I could remember, but it's too long ago" There never seems to be a moment for her where her emotion changes. For someone who claims they haven't read the evidence or listened to the podcast, she sure doesn't act surprised by any of the information coming out today.

So far it appears that they could at least be charged with Social Security Fraud since 1980. When they went overseas, they remained on the Electoral Roll each year as someone pointed out yesterday. My prediction is that their pensions (if she was also on one as a Carer?) would have been automatically going into their bank account while they were away. Also since when did a person receive an invalid pension due to PSTD? Also they owned at least two or three properties other than where they were living which they probably did not disclose and they rented so they would also receive rent assistance. So do authorities force them to sell anything they own now in restitution so Diane is probably afraid she'll end up with no assets and in prison.

Social Security fraud is an important part of the CDPP’s practice. The Department of Human Services (DHS) refers briefs of evidence in relation to allegations that people have intentionally engaged in conduct that has seen them receive social security benefits they know they are not entitled to.

Cases typically involve someone receiving benefits that have been calculated on a false premise.

Main offences

• s.134.1(1) Criminal Code—obtaining property by deception
• s.134.2(1) Criminal Code—obtaining a financial advantage by deception
• s.135.1(5) Criminal Code—general dishonesty—causing a loss
• s.135.2(1) Criminal Code—obtaining a financial advantage.

Penalties
The maximum penalties are:

• 10 years’ imprisonment for offences of obtaining property and obtaining a financial advantage by deception
• 10 years’ imprisonment for an offence of general dishonesty
• 12 months’ imprisonment for an offence of obtaining a financial advantage.

 

[xdfg]

In my opinion, she seems like she's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she is definitely avoiding whole truths. She never elaborates on a question, it is always one word answers, usually yes or no. She answers very sharply and abruptly, sometimes cutting off the question before it has been asked. Her behaviour is that of a woman who has zero interest in cooperating with police to get to the bottom of the case. If she was innocent, she would be more forthcoming in information or show more emotion in response. Eg " I wish I could remember, but it's too long ago" There never seems to be a moment for her where her emotion changes. For someone who claims they haven't read the evidence or listened to the podcast, she sure doesn't act surprised by any of the information coming out today.

Some older people just seem to be like that (my family are), but the thing that gets me is that she'll re-frame the question in her answer. For example, 'did you eat three weetbix for breakfast today?' 'oh I usually eat breakfast'. Kudos to the patience of the bench!!

 

[Estelle]

Do we know if his kids gave evidence? Or if they will?

I understood that they will. Perhaps at Byron Bay which is nearer to where they live.

 

[KiwiNZ]

she reminds me of the wife in "muriel's wedding" .. if anyone remembers that.