Australia Australia - Marion Barter - Missing After Trip to UK - June 1997 #21

[ruby925]

Yes he opened safety deposit boxes , dug holes in ground ,buried things ,shipped things off , and i recall others saying he looked after their paperwork

yes, no paper trail for money to be tracked, no proof of fraud and/or theft. But Marion's 80k that may have been electronically transferred overseas, whilst there is now no chance of it being traced, it was either transferred to another account in Marion's name or to a personal or company account (overseas I would guess) which then would have been quickly closed. RB is not known for having bank accounts... did he have one in Bali maybe? Another 'if only the police had taken Sally seriously' moment.

 

[centred]

But he would have needed Marion's deed poll name change too as her passport and driving license was in the name of FNMR and her bank accounts still in the name of Barter.
I can understand him wanting Marion to dye her hair, new hair colour, new name etc more likely not to be recognised but no clue about the others.

Her old documents were all in MB name so he would only need those to access anything of value in MB name

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Into Mr Blums safety deposit envelope, I think it went.

 

[centred]

If AH accompanied Marion to the bank each time that would be far to risky. Still risky if Marion herself went because people would have seen her. Less risky to use a female imposter.

I think i recall a witness saying he waited outside the bank, of course he did just to make sure he gets his hands on it

 

[Housemartyn]

Into Mr Blums safety deposit envelope, I think it went.

Yep. It fits in very nicely. A time line with all the known dates would be fantastic since my own sleuth qualities are not so sharp.

 

[centred]

Into Mr Blums safety deposit envelope, I think it went.

The $80.000 ? I wonder now how it was said it was a transfer ,I cannot recall now ..
Anyhoo it wasnt in the box long ...envelope box whatever ..it made lots of how small it was

 

[Housemartyn]

I think i recall a witness saying he waited outside the bank, of course he did just to make sure he gets his hands on it

How many times do you think he hung around the banks during that whole time period?? He definitely was not hanging around waiting for all those withdrawals IMHO.

 

[centred]

Yep. It fits in very nicely. A time line with all the known dates would be fantastic since my own sleuth qualities are not so sharp.

There is one a few pages back if you mean the dates of withdrawels etc

 

[centred]

How many times do you think he hung around the banks during that whole time period?? He definitely was not hanging around waiting for all those withdrawals IMHO.

I dont know, just sayin thats what he did with one lady , maybe he went to have a coffee and a sandwich He did admit in court when asked that he took her to lunch etc and she went to the bank ..

 

[Housemartyn]

I dont know, just sayin thats what he did with one lady , maybe he went to have a coffee and a sandwich He did admit in court when asked that he took her to lunch etc and she went to the bank ..

I see. But can we actually believe in anything he says. It's all BS. Can we not look at his evidence and concentrate on the facts??

 

[TootsieFootsie]

He probably would have wanted her to hand the money over to him pretty quickly.
I mean what if someone spotted them, so I think he probably waited outside or at a nearby cafe so she could hand the money to him "under the table".

Like you do, or like he does.

 

[Housemartyn]

He probably would have wanted her to hand the money over to him pretty quickly.
I mean what if someone spotted them, so I think he probably waited outside or at a nearby cafe so she could hand the money to him "under the table".

Like you do, or like he does.

But not that many times toots? Surely?

 

[Housemartyn]

He bought the car, either for getting rid of something whilst not taking the family vehicle out of action - or simply to get to the banks with his accomplice and withdrawing the funds. Or both.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

But not that many times toots? Surely?

Yes it's very strange.
Maybe he insisted on not transferring the money, because it could be traced. Although he wouldn't give that reason to Marion.

Maybe he insisted on cash and going in every day was the only way it could be done for some reason.

There was that daily limit. And if it's cash you wanted then you'd just have to keep going in every day until you withdrew however much you wanted.

In Mr Blums case he wanted the lot...

 

[Housemartyn]

Yes it's very strange.
Maybe he insisted on not transferring the money, because it could be traced. Although he wouldn't give that reason to Marion.

Maybe he insisted on cash and going in every day was the only way it could be done for some reason.

There was that daily limit. And if it's cash you wanted then you'd just have to keep going in every day until you withdrew however much you wanted.

In Mr Blums case he wanted the lot...

Yep. But so much more chance to see her again and again. That's risky don't you think? I don't think Marion would even be party to that. I think she was a victim who came to her senses.

 

[ruby925]

Her old documents were all in MB name so he would only need those to access anything of value in MB name

Sorry, confused now, which of Marion's old documents? Surely if there were old documents in the MB name, all the money could have accessed without going back to Australia. I am missing something obviously.

 

[Housemartyn]

Yep. But so much more chance to see her again and again. That's risky don't you think? I don't think Marion would even be party to that. I think she was a victim who came to her senses.

And that's why she 'disappeared'

 

[centred]

Sorry, confused now, which of Marion's old documents? Surely if there were old documents in the MB name, all the money could have accessed without going back to Australia. I am missing something obviously.

He generally minds any documents for his marks for them ...see post above re JO he disappears with them as well in some cases ..he took them back to Australia is the suggestion

 

[centred]

I see. But can we actually believe in anything he says. It's all BS. Can we not look at his evidence and concentrate on the facts??

The witness said this ...

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Yep. But so much more chance to see her again and again. That's risky don't you think? I don't think Marion would even be party to that. I think she was a victim who came to her senses.

I think she figured it out and paid the price