- Joined
- Apr 27, 2022
- Messages
- 4,248
- Reaction score
- 31,504
I'm asking this because I can't remember. I thought it was to officially open an investigation into Marion's disappearance; to establish evidence that supports the fact that she did not vanish of her own will and that she is dead. So for now the inquest is focusing on Marion fitting a pattern of women who were defrauded cruelly and criminally by the same man. Once they do that, do they then have to start a NEW investigation into the perpetrator of her death? I don't understand if Inquest #1 (this one) can establish anything more than Marion's being dead and that she was part of serial fraud. OR can this inquest also recommend that RB is responsible for Marion's disappearance?
I *think* the purpose is to establish if RB is connected to the disappearance of Marion, subsequent to her being formally declared a missing person by the police. And either following her being formally declared 'presumed dead' -or- in order to declare her as such. I could be mistaken.
Obviously, if the inquiry do conclude that RB is connected to Marion's disappearance and / or she is presumed dead, that would become a clear criminal matter and could force the hand of the police, nationally and internationally to step up investigations - maybe it opens doors that currently are not appropriate as her whereabouts it's considered 'unknown' and 'voluntarily'. JMO MOO