Saturday, March 31, 2012

Marion Stoner, First Marriage of Alexander Duke of Manchester



Marriage of Alexander Montagu to Marion Stoner   Marriage Certificate
March 17, 1984

Married from her mother's home, the wedding taking place in their garden. 

Marion Stoner was a model, aged 32, when in November of 1983, she met Alexander Montagu.  The couple were married on March 17th of the next year.   

Stoner had been in a relationship and had two children but never married.  

Due to violence and abuse by Alexander Marion Montagu left Alexander on May 21, 1984 and filed for legal separation.   See Application for Separation

Ms. Stoner reported in the application for separation having, "lived in a defacto relationship with Con Sorensen for twelve years."  The documents also says the two children were Lisa Marie, born December 5, 1969, and Daniel Frederick Sorensen, born July 10, 1973.

Immediately following the wedding, Marion reports that her husband became extremely hostile toward the children.  This escalated until on May 12th Alexander walked into the living room where Lisa Marie was watching television, grabbed and choked the girl, who was handicapped.  He carried her to the front door,  and threw her down the stairs, locking the door.  

The report, in five pages of narrative, given under penalty of perjury, outlines a series of assaults ending with an attack on Marion with a spear gun. In her own words, this is what took place after she had already endured barrages of violence and the assault on her children.

After filing for separation she never saw him again and never used the title, Lady Montagu.

August 31, 1984        - Application for Separation  
September 5, 1984   - Request for Restraining Order 
September 6, 1984   - Transcript of Proceedings
September 19, 1964 - Court Order extending previous order of court, made September 6th
                                    until the 2nd of October. 
October 2, 1984         - Court Order October 2, 1984  Alexander is restrained from  
                                    molesting, assaulting, abusing, intimidating, harassing or in any way 
                                    interfering  with the wife. 

The Application for Separation brings the words a terrified woman to life after a silence of decades.  It took no time for the court, which heard the case for a restraining order ex parte, to act.  

Application for Separation - From Page 3


""11. On another occasion on or about the 20th day of May, 1984 when my girlfriend AMANDA LEE RICHARDS  was present in my home having tea an argument occurred between the respondent and myself about my daughter Lisa Marie and his treatment of her and the respondent came in from the kitchen and hit me across the left side of the face with his open hand but with a great deal of force.  I was stunned by the force of the blow and thereafter suffered considerable pain as the blow caused painful bruising to my eye.  Immediately after my husband had assaulted me he then went to the broom cupboard in the home and removed a spear gun and loaded a spear into it, came into the room where Mandy Richardson and I were standing and took aim and fired the speargun at me.  The speargun missed my by approximately a foot but only missed my girlfriend's head by approximately half an inch.  


12. As a result of the respondent's assault upon me and my fear for my own safety and that of my two children I immediately made arrangements to leave the matrimonial home and I left the home on the day thereafter taking with me such furniture and possessions as I had previously acquired prior to the marriage.  


13. I verily believe that the respondent slashed his wrists with razor blades and was admitted to Dandenong and then to Pine Lodge Psychiatric Hospital where he remained as an in-patient for approximately four weeks.  


14. Thereafter I resided with a number of my friends and endeavored to keep away from the respondent and not let him become aware of my address.  When the respondent was unable to locate me I verily believe from my mother Mrs. Maria Stoner who resides in Cranbourne and sister Gabi Byng that the respondent telephoned them both constantly on a daily basis endeavoring to locate my whereabouts.  In addition, I am informed by my mother and my sister that the respondent drove his motor vehicle up and down the street in which they reside attempting to terrorise them and that he called at their homes and knocked on the door and tried to gain admission into their homes.  


15. Due to the fear that I had for my own safety and that of my children I went to reside with friends of mine in Essondon so that the respondent would be unable to threaten or assault me.  


16. In September school holidays, I returned to Cranbourne to reside with my mother at 22 Mundering Drive, Cranbourne.  I know, due to the fact that I have seen respondent driving his motor cycle and car up and down the street that the respondent is still trying to locate me and I am fearful for my safety in view of the respondent's irrational behavior." 

Alexander was incarcerated, first in the psychiatric facility mentioned.  The assault resulted in a conviction in the Dandenong Magistrate's Court on the 13th day of August, 1984 for two counts of assault with a weapon.  He was placed on probation for a period of twelve months with the direction he undergo psychiatric treatment.

He would soon be standing trial for credit card fraud and passing bad checks.

It is yet to be discovered if the attorney who represented him in those instances was the same gentleman who stood by him, intervening during the Siege of Montagu-Manchester.  This part of the story never made it to the newspapers but is to be found in the transcript of September 6, 1984, Montagu vs. Montagu.

The story begins to unfold on page 4 with a question posed to Mr. Conquest, solicitor for Mrs. Montagu regarding the serving of the anticipated ex parte order by Judge Mrs. Lusink. 

From the Transcript - First Section, Pages 1 - 7 & 7a  


"....I'm worrying the effect of having an ex parte order served on the husband if he is psychiatrically disturbed, and I was wondering whether we could get the help of the psychiatrist for the time of the service of the ex parte order.  Taking, you know, that I would be satisfied that an order should be made."

Mr. Conquest responded, "Sorry, I do not quite follow what your honor has got in mind there."
 
HER HONOR: What I have in mind is this:  here we have got a man who is under psychiatric treatment; he has been charged, and I mean, and he was found guilty, we he not, of assault?

MR. CONQUEST:  Indeed, your Honor, yes.

HER HONOUR:  That is right.  On somebody else.  But he is a man who is clearly disturbed.  Now, taking that I am prepared to make the ex parte order ---

MR. CONQUEST:  Yes.

HER HONOUR: ----bit alarmed at his --what is reaction might be. 

MR. CONQUEST:  So am I, your Honor, that is the reason why I am here, but I would happy, your Honour, to arrange -- to ascertain --I do know who the solicitor who has from time to time acted from - on behalf of the husband.  In fact, the affidavit - the co-operative affidavit is made by Miss Richards, who was in fact employed by that solicitor.

HER HONOUR:  Is this locally too?

MR. CONQUEST:  That solicitor is in Cranbourne."


Judge Lisink and Mr. Conquest edge into their concern the respondent might learn of his wife's whereabouts through the solicitor then acting for him.  They consider this and the ugly possibilities of what will happen the moment the respondent is served with papers.  The Judge is inclined to worry about ensuring Montagu's rights as a respondent are respected.  Mr. Conquest's concern is for what might happen to his client, Mrs. Montagu, when the papers are handed over.  A strong wish to hear from the defendant's solicitor is expressed and matters are briefly tabled so he can be brought into court.

Transcript, Second Section - Page 8 - 15

From Page 8


"ZOLTAN VARSZEGHY, solicitor for Montagu, is sworn in.  He affirms he is a solicitor with the Supreme Court of Victoria and this court, giving his address and other essential information.  He states he has been representing Mr. Montagu for eight months, handling a number of matters.

Then Judge Lisink asks, "Were you able to form any opinion albeit not as an expert medical pinion, as to the respondent's behavioural attitudes."  We learn Zoltan Varszeghy is well versed in the respondent's ways.

"I believe that this gentleman is probably the most dangerous client I have ever dealt with in seven years.  He is totally unreliable in relation to his attitude.  He has got streaks that at times come out of him where he does not appear to be himself or he does not appear to be on the same level of thinking as what I would class an ordinary person.  He has acted quite irrationally on a number of occasions, and the most dramatic being when he locked himself in his home, virtually sieged his home - I forget  the name of the street - it was in Cranbourne, and unfortunately a police siege ensued.  I volunteered to try to assist the police to bring him out of the home and during this time he slashed his wrists.  He had already slashed them prior to me being there, but he kept cutting himself open in the wrists.  He pointed a spear gun at a police officer who attended to ask him to vacate the premises decently. 

HER HONOUR:  Was that the basis of the subsequent charge, Mr. Varszeghy?

MR. CONQUEST:  No. your Honour, it was another one.

HER HONOUR: No, it was not? - - - No, your Honour.  This was just an incident where -- -

A few incidents with a spear gun?  yes---He - I think if I can give you a history of this, I may be able to bring some understanding of this gentleman.  He, as a result of that assault on this police officer - the police officer is presently on sick leave.  I have spoken to him.  It is one of the main reasons that this gentleman is on sick leave.  He is nervous wreck.  I, myself, was in there with him for three hours, at time with a spear gun pointed at me, at times with a policeman putting some pressure on.  It was quite a horrendous experience.  The police subsequently did apprehend him in the home.  He came out and he was apprehended.  He was taken to the Dandenong Psychiatric Clinic, and just, was just checked out the next day.  I then voluntarily took him back to the clinic with  police escort, unbeknown to him.  I told him that it was essential that he return to the clinic.  They would not have him.  The doctor refused to allow me to check him in.

Would that be Mr. Williamson? -- No.  This was a gentleman at the - this Dr. Williamson was wonderful man.  I then took him voluntarily to the Pine Lodge Clinic.

I see?---And Dr. Williamson attended him there.  Dr. Williamson has in fact told me that he has psychopathic tendencies."


- END OF QUOTED SECTIONS OF TRANSCRIPT -


As more details were shared with the court by Montagu's solicitor any objection to an ex parte order ceased.  Instead, the need for instant action on the part of the police, should it become necessary, became the focus of the discussion.

Alexander Montagu served a year for 29 counts of assault, credit card fraud and passing bad checks, but that was only part of the story. 

In 1988 an article appeared in The People which included this snap shot of the couple together.  
 
In the article, Marion steps forward to warn women about Alexander.  She cautions them on considering marriage with the man who is now Viscount of Mandeville because they are not divorced.  She has been unable to find him to serve papers.

Marion comments, "Our short marriage was hell."  "At first he was a real gentlemen, but changed dramatically into a monster."

You cannot tell a psychopath by the way he, or she, looks.

The divorce would not take place until three years after Alexander again married, this time to Wendy Buford Montagu, the mother of his two children. 

At some point Lady Mary Montagu, Alexander's mother, became involved in the issue of the marriage, which impacted the legitimacy of the two Manchester children. 

The papers were taken out by Lady Mary Montagu in Australia, expressed to Alexander, living with his wife and child in Orange County California.  Alexander signed them and sent them back to his mother, where they were filed in good order.   But despite the demands his mother made that the two remarry he neither remarried Wendy Buford, who had no idea he was still married.  Alexander had never told her about his first marriage and never mentioned the name of Marion Stoner. 

On one level it was just paperwork.  But on another level we see a highly psychopathic individual in operation.  


Second Marriage - Wendy Buford Montagu 


No comments:

Post a Comment