“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 we will upload or post a link in due course, 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.

You can view the Findings of the Inquest into the disappearance of Marion Barter delivered by NSW State Coroner, Her Honour Magistrate Teresa O'Sullivan by clicking the link to the Coroners Court of New South Wales to the right. Findings start at 4:15. 

I would like to acknowledge and commend Sally on her unwavering commitment and participation in the coronial investigation and inquest to find out what happened to her mother. She has shown fortitude, dignity, resilience, and grace throughout these proceedings.

• I express my sympathy and condolences to Sally, Chris, Bronwen, Deirdre, Lee, Marion’s grandchildren, Marion’s family, friends, and loved ones, and the many people that Marion touched in her life. I would like to again acknowledge that the experience of grief for a missing person is complex and difficult as there remain many unanswered questions.
• I would like to acknowledge the tireless work carried out by the investigators from the New South Wales Police Force, Detective Inspector Nigel Warren, Detective Sergeant Sasha Pinazza and Detective Senior Constable Leza Pessotto, and express my gratitude for their ongoing assistance throughout the coronial investigation and inquest.
• I would also like to acknowledge my counsel assisting team, Adam Casselden SC, Tracey Stevens, and Clara Potocki. They have dedicated an enormous amount of time and commitment to the preparation and conduct of this inquest and have provided tremendous assistance to me.
• I also thank the legal representatives for the interested parties for their cooperation and assistance during these proceedings.

Finally, I would like to conclude by acknowledging and recognising the person that Marion was to her family, friends, and loved ones. The witnesses who provided statements and evidence at the inquest described Marion as a loving and caring person who had a fondness for antiques and the arts, could easily make friends, and who was also a gifted teacher.

It is fitting to end, as Counsel Assisting did in their closing written submissions, with the words shared by Sally to the Court reading from the family statement that she had prepared in which she described Marion as:

“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.”