The story of Marion Barter

 “a kind, caring soul with a wicked laugh. She was intelligent, she was cultured, and she had so many friends who loved and miss her still. She would always bring you flowers or a cake. She was a very generous human.”

The mysterious disappearance of Marion Barter is a haunting tale that begins in 1997 and has left investigators and loved ones grappling with unanswered questions for decades. Marion, a former school teacher from Australia, embarked on a journey to Europe, particularly Luxembourg and the United Kingdom, and seemingly vanished without a trace.

Marion Barter was not your typical missing person. Described as a vivacious and adventurous woman, she decided to explore the world on her own. Her decision to travel overseas was abrupt, leading to her selling her house at a loss and giving away to family and friends all but her most valuable belongings. What was intended to be a spirited adventure, however, turned into a perplexing mystery when Marion's communications abruptly ceased, leaving her daughter, Sally Leydon, in a state of bewilderment and anguish.

The timeline leading up to her disappearance unfolds against the backdrop of her life in Australia. Marion had been a teacher, dedicating herself to shaping young minds and achieving accolades for her work, including the runner up of the Australian Teacher of the Year award. Yet, beneath the surface, there seemed to be unfulfilled dreams and a longing for something more. In the late 1990s, at an age when many might settle into the comforts of routine, Marion chose to embrace the unknown.

Her journey took her to Luxembourg and the UK, countries both with a rich tapestry of history and culture. However, it was in this foreign land that Marion seemingly faded away, leaving behind a trail of uncertainty. The last confirmed contact with Marion Barter was in the form of a phone call to Sally in late July 1997. 

From that point forward, her whereabouts became an intricate puzzle that would baffle investigators, tug at the hearts of her loved ones, and capture the attention of a global audience intrigued by the inexplicable.

Sally Leydon, Marion's daughter, became the torchbearer in the quest for answers. Fuelled by love, concern, and an unwavering determination to unravel the truth, Sally embarked on a journey that transcended physical and emotional boundaries. Her search for Marion became a personal odyssey, leading her to retrace her mother's steps in both Luxembourg and the UK, and unearth the fragments of Marion's life that might hold the key to the mystery.

As Sally delved deeper into the investigation and joined forces with 7 News in the creation of The Lady Vanishes podcast, she discovered the emergence of an online community of sleuths. These amateur detectives, connected through forums, social media, and shared passion, dedicated themselves to unravelling the Marion Barter case. United by a commitment to justice and an insatiable curiosity, these digital detectives combed through information, analysed data, and engaged in discussions that often-brought fresh perspectives to the table.

The Marion Barter case became a captivating puzzle for these sleuths, and their efforts transformed the investigation into a collaborative and dynamic pursuit. The digital realm became a space where information was shared, leads were explored, and the collective wisdom of the crowd was harnessed to shed light on overlooked aspects of the case.

Investigations unearthed Marion Barter had changed her name to Florabella Natalia Marion Remakel prior to her disappearance. This discovery set off a chain of events leading to super sleuth, Joni Condos, finally connecting the name to a lonely-hearts advertisement in a French Australian newspaper. This discovery started what would be a snowball of new information that led to the identification of a significant ‘person of interest’ and triggered a coronial inquest, unearthing victims of a devious con artist from across the globe.

The story of Marion Barter is not merely a tale of disappearance; it's a narrative that explores the complexities of human relationships, unfulfilled aspirations, and the enduring power of familial bonds. Marion's decision to step into the unknown mirrors the universal human desire for exploration and self-discovery. Yet, it's the unanswered questions surrounding her disappearance that elevate this story from a personal tragedy to a gripping mystery that resonates with people around the world.

The Marion Barter case is a poignant reminder of the profound impact that a single individual's disappearance can have on those left behind. It raises questions about the nature of identity, the fragility of human connections, and the thin line between adventure and the unknown. As Sally Leydon continues her quest for answers and the community of sleuths persists in their digital detective work, the story of Marion Barter remains an open book, waiting for the final chapters to be written and the mystery to be unravelled.

A true story that unravels a stranger than fiction narrative and follows a daughter's relentless search for answers in the face of closed doors, red tape and ambiguous loss.

“a kind, caring soul with a wicked laugh. She was intelligent, she was cultured, and she had so many friends who loved and miss her still. She would always bring you flowers or a cake. She was a very generous human.”

The inquest, held after years of public pressure and interest in the case, aimed to shed light on the circumstances surrounding Marion's disappearance. After meticulous examination of evidence, testimonies, and expert opinions, the findings were finally unveiled on 29th February 2024.

The conclusion reached by the Her Honour State Coroner Teresa O'Sullivan revealed shocking truths about Marion's fate. It was determined that Marion had tragically died on or sometime after 15 October 1997, and her remains were never found. The circumstances surrounding her death, however, remained murky, leaving lingering questions about the events leading to her demise.

The findings of the inquest underscored the complexities of the case and highlighted the challenges inherent in investigating decades-old disappearances. While it may not provide the closure that many had hoped for, the inquest served as a reminder of the enduring mystery surrounding Marion's disappearance and the unwavering determination of those committed to seeking justice on her behalf.

Before we dive into the findings of the inquest, it is important to understand the role of the Coroner. There have been many questions in the lead up to the Findings as to exactly what this is.  

• Section 27(1) of the Coroners Act 2009 NSW (the Act) requires an inquest to be held if it has not been sufficiently disclosed whether a person has died or what the manner and cause of a person’s death was.
• In a missing persons case, the Coroner must first determine as a threshold question whether the evidence establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that the person is deceased.
• Where the Coroner reaches a conclusion that the person is deceased, the Coroner must then proceed to consider the matters set out in section 81(1) of the Act, namely:

                   a) the deceased person’s identity;

                   b) the date and place of the person’s death;

                   c) the manner and cause of the person’s death.

• The Act does not define the phrase “manner and cause of death”. It is generally accepted that it is a composite phrase involving inter-related, but distinct, concepts. The manner of death relates to the circumstances in which a death took place whereas the cause of death is the direct and proximate physiological cause of the death.
• Pursuant to section 82 of the Act, the Coroner may make recommendations in relation to any matter connected with the death, suspected death, fire, or explosion with which an inquest or inquiry is concerned. The matters that can be the subject of a recommendation are those that have the capacity to improve public health and safety in the future, and/or be investigated or reviewed by a specified person or body. A recommendation can be made if it arises from the evidence adduced and tendered at the inquest or inquiry.
• The witnesses and organisations involved in an inquest are not on trial. It is not the role of the Coroner to attribute blame or punish any person or persons for Marion’s disappearance.
• Section 81(3) of the Act, provides that when findings are delivered, the Coroner must not indicate or in any way suggest that an offence has been committed by any person.

The entire Findings document is a lengthy report of which you can read in full below, however the main points from the coroner's report are: 

I find, on the balance of probabilities, that Florabella Natalia Marion Remakel, formerly known as Marion Barter, is deceased.

Identity:

The person who died was Florabella Natalia Marion Remakel, formerly known as Marion Barter.

Date of death:

While I am unable to determine the exact date of death, I find that Florabella Natalia Marion Remakel, formerly known as Marion Barter, is likely to have died on a date after 15 October 1997.

Place of death:

I am unable to determine the place of Florabella Natalia Marion Remakel, formerly Marion Barter’s death.

Cause of death:

I am unable to determine the cause of Florabella Natalia Marion Remakel, formerly Marion Barter’s death.

Manner of death:

I am unable to determine the manner of Florabella Natalia Marion Remakel, formerly Marion Barter’s death.

On Blum

I have found that Marion and Mr Blum travelled together in England as a couple in a relationship for at least some period of time when Marion was in England in 1997

...

I accept Counsel Assisting’s submissions and find that the evidence of Ms Gaffney–Bowan, Ms Oldenburg, Ms Danlois–Dubois, Ms Flamme and Ms Landrieu demonstrates a tendency on the part of Mr Blum to misrepresent himself to single vulnerable women for financial gain, and further find that Mr Blum had a tendency to exploit vulnerable women. 

…

I also find that Mr Blum exploited Marion in 1997 in the manner in which he later exploited other women who have given evidence in these proceedings. I make this finding despite Mr Blum’s denials in this regard and notwithstanding that the women involved in his (later) relationships remained alive and well. Mr Blum was asked by Counsel Assisting in evidence: “You never sought to take advantage of Marion Barter as a single middle aged woman?” He said: “She was involved with other people. Why would I – anyway.”342 I find that Mr Blum entered into a relationship with Marion in 1997 and encouraged her to start a new life with him. To this end Marion changed her name, spent some time with Mr Blum in England, and on return to Australia represented herself as married (to Mr Blum) and demonstrated an intention to start a new life in Luxembourg with him. Mr Blum travelled to England to spend time with Marion when he clearly did not intend to pursue the relationship because he was married with children and lived in Wollongbar in New South Wales. 

…

I do not accept as accurate anything Mr Blum has said in evidence in the absence of independent corroborating evidence. 

…

In the final days of the evidence Mr Blum was asked: “Would you like to say anything further in relation to the disappearance of Marion Barter? He answered “No, what could I say?” He was then asked: “You don’t know what became of Marion Barter?” Mr Blum then offered the following in response: “I myself, believe that she’s still alive. That’s what I believe, but I don’t know anything about what she did, or whereabouts, or nothing at all.” I then asked him in Court: “Why do you believe that Marion is still alive?” and he answered: “Because she – I can’t tell you exactly when – and – but in a conversation before she went to England, she said that she want to separate from her family. She didn’t want anything to do with any member of her family. She was a bit of a strange person.” Mr Blum went on to say that this conversation apparently happened in her house in Queensland where she told him that she had “had enough of her family.”

Mr Blum was asked further questions about the details of this conversation. He could not recall on which of the occasions he met Marion in Southport that this conversation occurred. He was asked why he had never volunteered that information to the investigating police and he said: “I can’t give you an answer.”

It was suggested by Counsel Assisting to Mr Blum that he knows more about the whereabouts of Marion than he has volunteered in his evidence throughout the course of the proceedings. He responded: “I don’t know anything – anything about Marion Barter.”

Counsel Assisting submitted that Mr Blum has had many opportunities throughout the course of the investigation and in evidence to disclose this alleged conversation with Marion about wanting to separate from her family. Counsel Assisting submitted that the motivation for such a comment made at the conclusion of the proceedings is not clear. If true, it would be of great significance. Yet, it is likely not true. It does not fit with Marion’s known relationships with her family, even notwithstanding her secrecy in the months prior to her travel overseas. If the comments are lies, the most reasonable and likely inference for the motivation for these lies is a crude attempt to distance himself from Marion and the circumstances of his relationship with her in 1997, including, in regard to her travel, her failure to contact her family and her inexplicable disappearance. 

…

Mr Blum’s evidence in the final days of the inquest when asked by Counsel Assisting: “Would you like to say anything further in relation to the disappearance of Marion Barter?” was extraordinary. This evidence, along with his lies and deception throughout the inquest has convinced me that he does indeed know more than he is saying. 

I make the following further findings regarding Mr Blum: 

1) That he has further knowledge about the circumstances of Marion’s travel overseas; 

2) That he has further knowledge of his relationship with her in the months prior to her disappearance; 

3) That he has further knowledge of her circumstances following her return from overseas; 

4) That he has further knowledge of the withdrawals and transfer of her money; and 

5) That there is a sufficient basis for a finding that he was and is deliberately unwilling to divulge this further knowledge to the Court. 

On NSW Police

Having considered all the evidence tendered and the submissions made, I find that the nature and adequacy of the police investigation into the disappearance of Marion by NSW Police between her disappearance in 1997 up until 2019 was not adequate and agree with Counsel Assisting that it is clear from the evidence that following the initial report made by Sally to Byron Bay Police Station on 22 October 1997, that very little was done to investigate Marion’s whereabouts until approximately ten years later in 2007. 

I also find that the police investigation into the disappearance of Marion by NSW Police from the report on 22 October 1997 up until 2007 was not conducted in an appropriate and timely manner and not consistent with the relevant policy in force within NSW Police at the time. 

…

I agree with the submissions made by Counsel Assisting (with whom the Family also agree) and accept Detective Chief Inspector Browne’s evidence. I find that Detective Senior Constable Sheehan should not have reclassified Marion as located in 2011. 

I would also add that Detective Chief Inspector Browne gave very clear and useful evidence to the Court about what he expected should have happened in 1997. The resistance in this inquest by New South Wales Police to accept the inadequacies of the initial police investigation in 1997 is difficult to understand in circumstances where a senior Police officer has given what is essentially expert evidence on what should have happened. 

Recommendations

• Pursuant to section 82 of the Act, Coroners may make recommendations connected with a death.
• Marion’s remains have not been found, and the available evidence does not allow me to make any findings as to the possible cause and manner of Marion’s death.
• However, the circumstances surrounding Marion’s disappearance are troubling.
• Accordingly, I make the following recommendation:
• 
  

To the New South Wales Commissioner of Police:

I recommend that the NSW Commissioner of Police cause the investigation into the death of missing person Florabella Natalia Marion Remakel, formerly known as Marion Barter, to be referred to or remain within the State Crime Command Unsolved Homicide Team for ongoing investigation, review, and monitoring.