Australia Australia - Marion Barter, 51, missing after trip to UK, June 1997 #11

[inkpink]

This is an intriguing case which is just starting to gain some traction due to her daughter's relentless efforts.

Here is the facebook page:

Missing Person Marion Barter

...and a just released podcast 'The Lady Vanishes'

Left Behind | The Lady Vanishes on acast

___

Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10

 

[Sillybilly]

Please continue discussion here and remember that the following Order has been issued in relation to these current live proceedings:

By using this site you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions. The Court Security Act 2005 restricts the use of recording devices, and the unauthorised transmission/distribution of court proceedings/recordings. Restrictions may apply under the Coroners Act 2009. Breaches of Court Security Act 2005 and the Coroners Act 2009 may constitute a criminal offence. Failing to comply with a Court’s order may constitute the offence of contempt of court.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN REMINDERS:

Do not discuss other members. Everyone is here to discuss the case, not critique other members. Such posts are off topic and will be removed and there may be Warning Points issued or more serious consequences.

ALL images require a link to the source. No link, no post !!

Just because someone has the same name does not mean they are the same person. Do not post information about anyone unless you are 110% sure it is the intended person.

Thank you.

 

[Jay_Tec]

In terms of Occam's Razor - the most likely person to have removed the money from the account is someone who worked for the bank with sufficient authority to be totally unsupervised.

 

[Meligator]

Not sure I have my dates correct but I was re-listening to part of DdH testimony & it sounded like RB & family moved from Tasmania to Ballina in 1996. Is that right? By 1996, BR was already establishing himself in the NSW area (Ballina Coins/Lennox Head Po Box in 1994--and I think, although could be wrong, that their joint commonwealth account in Ballina was established in 1992). Also, 1994/5 were the years he was traveling overseas most frequently (several times per year). How was he doing all this if family was in Tasmania?

 

[Jay_Tec]

It's such an nonsensical story - I just can't get my head around his motivation for coming up with them having an affair decades earlier. And like you say it's surely something the police can confirm either way if MB was in Switzerland at that time. It's like the JO belly-dancing story... it just beggars belief.

He likes to paint women as '*advertiser censored*', it's an integral part of his personality. He may even truly believe that women are trying to seduce him and exploit him everywhere he goes. I suggest he thinks women are not only worthless but dangerous and a threat, potential loss of his self-control. Like a true predator and misogynist he takes pleasure in demeaning them and planting the seeds of doubt about their motives - one a seductress, another a belly dancer, another asking him to take risque photographs. We know he tells the opposite story so in fact he probably tries to persuade the women he grooms to be more sexually adventurous, do things they wouldn't normally do, with the sole aim being to have blackmail / coercion leverage. Invoking shame in the victim is a tool that very serious abusers and sex offenders use to groom vulnerable people and ensure they don't speak out.

I imagine that his long term relationship is firmly in a mother - son dynamic, narcissist / codependent, with his wife chronically enabling and facilitating his life and overlooking problems. It could be that she is unwell, medicated / sedated, addicted, or somehow mentally vulnerable and set back possibly after lifelong psychological abuse ?

 

[Eyespywithmylittleeye]

Not sure I have my dates correct but I was re-listening to part of DdH testimony & it sounded like RB & family moved from Tasmania to Ballina in 1996. Is that right? By 1996, BR was already establishing himself in the NSW area (Ballina Coins/Lennox Head Po Box in 1994--and I think, although could be wrong, that their joint commonwealth account in Ballina was established in 1992). Also, 1994/5 were the years he was traveling overseas most frequently (several times per year). How was he doing all this if family was in Tasmania?

It couldn’t have been 96 for all of your reasons above. They both seem off with their dates during inquest..

 

[BonnieB]

Not sure I have my dates correct but I was re-listening to part of DdH testimony & it sounded like RB & family moved from Tasmania to Ballina in 1996. Is that right? By 1996, BR was already establishing himself in the NSW area (Ballina Coins/Lennox Head Po Box in 1994--and I think, although could be wrong, that their joint commonwealth account in Ballina was established in 1992). Also, 1994/5 were the years he was traveling overseas most frequently (several times per year). How was he doing all this if family was in Tasmania?

My understanding of his movements are that he purchased a house in Woodenbong in 1987. then built a house in Goonellabah, staying only about 18mths there before re-locating to Midway Point in 1992. IMO something or someone forced the move from his newly built home in 1992. IMO he was hiding down there for about 12 months.

 

[1965school]

To me if anything that would pose a problem if Willy wonka is hanging around there with potentially another woman or withdrawing cash.. he wouldn’t want to be seen by a sister in law… especially IF his wife was not wise to what was going on

My opinion only I think there were more hands in the pie

 

[Liselle]

In terms of Occam's Razor - the most likely person to have removed the money from the account is someone who worked for the bank with sufficient authority to be totally unsupervised.

For dummies like me (!) and others here who are not familiar with this terminology, it is described thus "Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose an event has two possible explanations. The explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation."

 

[BonnieB]

In my humble opinion, I just cannot see that realistically happening with the personalities involved here - Willy Wonka prolific liar, con artist, manipulator of women, and Marion (someone with a weak area / blind spot / vulnerability for a romantic dream but otherwise together, very realistic, and law abiding).

I suggest that Wonka fathomed out a way to remove the money at the daily limit without having the police called, that he used another woman to front up, using whatsoever deceitful story or incentive necessary.

Anything else would be too far high risk for him - if it were Marion making withdrawals, one false move on her behalf such as asking a bank teller to lock her in the back room and call the police, and his entire life would come crashing down instantaneously. Wonka is not stupid and he is also a coward of the highest order, he assesses risk and likelihood. I imagine he would think nothing of sending a female mule into the bank on false pretences to make the daily withdrawals, happy in the knowledge that were she to be arrested, he couldn't be identified (someone he befriended using one of his fake personas) and she would be detained / imprisoned.

Horrible as it seems, I cannot believe that Marion came back to Australia and if she did, not for long, it certainly wasn't her making the withdrawals. MOO. I believe Wonka has all the hallmarks of a sociopathic extreme narcissist who could be easily capable of murder(s) if someone stood between him and his goal. Plus it would seem he literally despises women.

In terms of how such predatory abusers usually operate, the day that Marion said she would be 'going quiet' for a while is highly likely to have been her last day on this earth. Something dramatically changed that day. Were that to have happened, I fear she would by no means have been the first woman to have been 'dispatched'.

I suspect Wonka has a complicit female or maybe unwitting female partner in crime, could be someone he used and paid like a personal assistant sending on errands, possibly his wife, maybe not.

I agree that RB is a prolific liar, con artist and manipulator of women. He has honed his skills in those areas over his lifetime. IMO, I think you might be under estimating MB's vulnerability. Although intelligent, gregarious and independent, MB was fearful of being alone and unloved as she approached menopause. Added to this was the undercurrent of accusations in her workplace which I'm sure RB seized upon to reinforce and enhance a feeling of impending public shame. He offered her all the solutions; romance, excitement, a whirlwind secret love affair and marriage to a wealthy ex-footballer from Luxembourg. He spun her a convincing line for the need of speed and secrecy and MB fell for it. She wasn't acting rationally when she sold her home well under value, changed her name, when she suddenly quit her job or when she upended drawers into packing boxes. MB was acting under his coercive control.
As to accomplices - there is no evidence he used any whilst fleecing GGB or during his attempted theft of JO's property. The less people involved in his scams, the less chance of being caught IMO. The only person who was somewhat complicit, was his wife, who turned a blind eye to what must have been suspicious behaviour during their entire marriage.

 

[CrossingToSafety]

I don’t think this fits time-wise with our guy. But throwing it out there just in case. I think 46 rue de francs was an address of interest ?
Here’s an advertisement in a Belgium Newspaper for land wanted. So presume it’s the Belgium located ‘rue de francs’. Very roughly translated and summarised…

19-01-1960
Le Soir, pg 15
(Advertisement)

(In the ‘Land Wanted’ section)
I pay well for land.
Well located, min 7m East of Brussels - Write. Greban de St-Germain, 46, rue des Francs.

 

[CrossingToSafety]

I agree that RB is a prolific liar, con artist and manipulator of women. He has honed his skills in those areas over his lifetime. IMO, I think you might be under estimating MB's vulnerability. Although intelligent, gregarious and independent, MB was fearful of being alone and unloved as she approached menopause. Added to this was the undercurrent of accusations in her workplace which I'm sure RB seized upon to reinforce and enhance a feeling of impending public shame. He offered her all the solutions; romance, excitement, a whirlwind secret love affair and marriage to a wealthy ex-footballer from Luxembourg. He spun her a convincing line for the need of speed and secrecy and MB fell for it. She wasn't acting rationally when she sold her home well under value, changed her name, when she suddenly quit her job or when she upended drawers into packing boxes. MB was acting under his coercive control.
As to accomplices - there is no evidence he used any whilst fleecing GGB or during his attempted theft of JO's property. The less people involved in his scams, the less chance of being caught IMO. The only person who was somewhat complicit, was his wife, who turned a blind eye to what must have been suspicious behaviour during their entire marriage.

Great analysis! I agree with all your ideas here.

MB had already been hiding a remarkable secret about her lover and name change from her very nearest and dearest. If she believed a story spun by RB about being an undercover agent, for example, she would follow his advice for everyone’s safety. She would not need to be controlled in any other way.

I agree she would be absolutely besotted with the idea of spending her life with a well travelled European who could take her to the cultured cities and refined events she longed for. The museums, the opera, antiques, galleries…. She was certainly born in the wrong part of the world given her elegant tastes! She may have believed they would be starting a romantic new life together somewhere safe and was withdrawing the money to make her funds accessible.

Thanks to the brave ladies (JO, GGB and MC) who shared their stories we know they caught him out telling elaborate lies, manipulating their vulnerabilities, taking money, holding documents, stealing items, using threats. Nothing that indicates an accomplice.

It’s really difficult for me to see his personality working with an accomplice. He wouldn’t want to share the proceeds of his crimes.

And he certainly wouldn’t work for someone else, his ego would not allow that!

 

[brjakj]

For anyone wanting to do some searching, I have found archives of phone directories from Belgium (mostly Brussels I think). they are too hard to search on my phone but someone on a computer may have more luck.

Almanacs

 

[Jay_Tec]

For dummies like me (!) and others here who are not familiar with this terminology, it is described thus "Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose an event has two possible explanations. The explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation."

Ah, I apologise for using terminology that not everyone would know.

Yep, the gist of it is, that the most likely, straightforward, obvious, explanation with the least amount of people involved is usually 'the one'. Not always obviously. Criminals tend to act fast and involve as few people as possible, for various reasons.

For that, and other personal speculations, I find it impossible to believe Marion was in any way involved in withdrawing her money. I find that part of this situation almost impossible to get my head around except in the following ways -

1) A rogue member of bank staff who was aware Marion was going away for a long time (and knew she wasn't intending to touch her money) did this and possibly nothing even to do with Wonka whatsoever;

2) Wonka acted in collusion with a fairly senior member of bank staff (if so, probably a female);

3) Wonka had someone highly groomed to act as Marion herself and the bank staff fully believed it was Marion;

4) All the transactions were completed via online or phone banking and the money was not in fact removed in cash at all.

 

[BonnieB]

Ah, I apologise for using terminology that not everyone would know.

Yep, the gist of it is, that the most likely, straightforward, obvious, explanation with the least amount of people involved is usually 'the one'. Not always obviously. Criminals tend to act fast and involve as few people as possible, for various reasons.

For that, and other personal speculations, I find it impossible to believe Marion was in any way involved in withdrawing her money. I find that part of this situation almost impossible to get my head around except in the following ways -

1) A rogue member of bank staff who was aware Marion was going away for a long time (and knew she wasn't intending to touch her money) did this and possibly nothing even to do with Wonka whatsoever;

2) Wonka acted in collusion with a fairly senior member of bank staff (if so, probably a female);

3) Wonka had someone highly groomed to act as Marion herself and the bank staff fully believed it was Marion;

4) All the transactions were completed via online or phone banking and the money was not in fact removed in cash at all.

Thank you @Jay_Tec for your interesting speculations. As a mere amateur sleuth, I am having difficulty understanding some of your reasoning.

1. If as you postulated, MB met her demise in the UK, why would RB take the risk of engaging a woman to travel back to Aust on MB's passport? Why involve a third party and why bring any investigation of murder closer to him?

2. If as you suggested, MB was dispensed with shortly after her arrival, why allow her to return at all? Wouldn't it be to his advantage to have the inevitable investigations centred overseas?

3. Then there is the purchase of a car the week after MB returned. RB avoided driving as a rule, preferring public transport. The car was disposed of four weeks after the money was withdrawn. Why was the car purchased and subsequently sold?

4. Why did RB open a bank safety deposit box the day before the final withdrawal and close it 13 days later? Who was holding the money during the withdrawal process?

5. Knowing a corrupt senior bank staff member in MB's bank, a bank he didn't deal with, would have been very fortuitous but not impossible I suppose. Somehow I don't see RB handing over half of the loot though.

6. The final large withdrawal is thought to have been an EFT transfer to another account, possibly overseas, and the account closed. This, I assume, in 1997, would have involved a face to face transaction; a fairly risky procedure with a "stand in" I would think.

Perhaps I'm not seeing the forest for the trees but loose ends bother me.

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

I agree that RB is a prolific liar, con artist and manipulator of women. He has honed his skills in those areas over his lifetime. IMO, I think you might be under estimating MB's vulnerability. Although intelligent, gregarious and independent, MB was fearful of being alone and unloved as she approached menopause. Added to this was the undercurrent of accusations in her workplace which I'm sure RB seized upon to reinforce and enhance a feeling of impending public shame. He offered her all the solutions; romance, excitement, a whirlwind secret love affair and marriage to a wealthy ex-footballer from Luxembourg. He spun her a convincing line for the need of speed and secrecy and MB fell for it. She wasn't acting rationally when she sold her home well under value, changed her name, when she suddenly quit her job or when she upended drawers into packing boxes. MB was acting under his coercive control.
As to accomplices - there is no evidence he used any whilst fleecing GGB or during his attempted theft of JO's property. The less people involved in his scams, the less chance of being caught IMO. The only person who was somewhat complicit, was his wife, who turned a blind eye to what must have been suspicious behaviour during their entire marriage.

Agree 100%. Con men are consummate liars. They also think they are smarter than everyone else. This does not bode well for including accomplices. Makes the plan harder to control.

 

[Satchie]

Ah, I apologise for using terminology that not everyone would know.

Yep, the gist of it is, that the most likely, straightforward, obvious, explanation with the least amount of people involved is usually 'the one'. Not always obviously. Criminals tend to act fast and involve as few people as possible, for various reasons.

For that, and other personal speculations, I find it impossible to believe Marion was in any way involved in withdrawing her money. I find that part of this situation almost impossible to get my head around except in the following ways -

1) A rogue member of bank staff who was aware Marion was going away for a long time (and knew she wasn't intending to touch her money) did this and possibly nothing even to do with Wonka whatsoever;

2) Wonka acted in collusion with a fairly senior member of bank staff (if so, probably a female);

3) Wonka had someone highly groomed to act as Marion herself and the bank staff fully believed it was Marion;

4) All the transactions were completed via online or phone banking and the money was not in fact removed in cash at all.

Romance scams were less well known in those days, but are extremely common now, they always involve the victim voluntarily draining their bank account and voluntarily giving the money to the scammer.

Everything about the case says romance scam to me:
* Marion keeping her boyfriend secret from everyone
* Her secretly changing her own name and passport
* Her selling her home, which most single women wouldn't do, unless they believed they'd have somewhere else to live
* The handwriting appears to be the same, and hers, on both the outbound and the return landing card
* Her daughter describes her as somewhat naive.

Most romance scams don't end in murder, but some do.

IMO, if someone wanted Marion to disappear, far better to do it on their own stomping grounds, around remote Byron Bay, rather than extremely crowded England.

JMO

 

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Romance scams were less well known in those days, but are extremely common now, they always involve the victim voluntarily draining their bank account and voluntarily giving the money to the scammer.

Everything about the case says romance scam to me:
* Marion keeping her boyfriend secret from everyone
* Her secretly changing her own name and passport
* Her selling her home, which most single women wouldn't do, unless they believed they'd have somewhere else to live
* The handwriting appears to be the same, and hers, on both the outbound and the return landing card
* Her daughter describes her as somewhat naive.

Most romance scams don't end in murder, but some do.

IMO, if someone wanted Marion to disappear, far better to do it on their own stomping grounds, around remote Byron Bay, rather than extremely crowded England.

JMO

And that summary is, at least for me, a perfect example of Occam's Razor. It is the simplest, most direct scenario with few to no assumptions.

 

[BonnieB]

Does anyone else suspect Wonka was up to something very shady in 1992?
Having just built a brand new home at Goonellabah, he decides to change his name to R L Westbury, sell the new home and move to Tasmania for 12 months. IMO it wasn't just the weather in Goonellabah that had become too hot to handle. After cooling his heels in the Tassie climate for a year, he moves back to a rental property in Ballina. That's a big move, uprooting two kids in school for a change in scenery. Anyone have any clues?