Found Deceased Australia - Karen Ristevski, 47, Melbourne, Vic, 29 June 2016 - #16 *Arrest*

[tmar]

He is so lucky.
Great, at least he has the 'plastic bags' left.
We don't have them anymore around here.

 

[they'll get you]

Another explanation please: too smart for me, to catch on AGAIN.

It's a play on words.
Um....
Bends?

 

[Morrisa]

Great news. I wonder if he'll do a Holdom and plead guilty at the 11th hour?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

What happened to Karen Ristevski?

Borce Ristevski is a man who doesn’t give much away, even when told he will stand trial for his wife’s murder.

...
Mr Ristevski will face the Supreme Court on Monday where a likely date and duration will be set for his trial, even though the accused man is facing one count of murder, a jury will have the option of convicting him of the lesser charge of manslaughter.

What happened to Karen Ristevski?

Interesting turn of events. So if the jury decides he is guilty of manslaughter,will this be pure guesswork on their part from evidence produced in court alone, or will his defence team give a scenario without BR admission of guilt and they accept it?
This is similar to GBC, but in his case it was brought up too late, after his trial and sentence. I'm sure he'll be watching the outcome of this trial.

 

[aust amateur slueth]

Great news. I wonder if he'll do a Holdom and plead guilty at the 11th hour?

Doubt it, responsibility and honesty don't appear to be part of his vocabulary or ethics.

 

[Fuskier]

Bayden Clay

"The ruling found it was open to the jury to regard the lengths Baden-Clay went to in concealing his wife's body and his part in her demise as "beyond what was likely, as a matter of human experience, to have been engendered by a consciousness of having unintentionally killed his wife"."

Baden-Clay High Court ruling sets precedents on testimony and post-offence behaviour

Thanks for this excerpt Edgarb. Let's hope the Jury use this as their guideline in the Ristevski case.

 

[SouthAussie]

Mr Ristevski will face the Supreme Court on Monday where a likely date and duration will be set for his trial, even though the accused man is facing one count of murder, a jury will have the option of convicting him of the lesser charge of manslaughter.

What happened to Karen Ristevski?

Interesting turn of events. So if the jury decides he is guilty of manslaughter,will this be pure guesswork on their part from evidence produced in court alone, or will his defence team give a scenario without BR admission of guilt and they accept it?
This is similar to GBC, but in his case it was brought up too late, after his trial and sentence. I'm sure he'll be watching the outcome of this trial.

I hope it is not a given that the Victorian Supreme Court will be giving the jury the option of choosing between murder and manslaughter. I would sincerely like to see the jury do the hard work and convict Borce of murder. I am afraid that giving them the option of manslaughter may allow them to take the easier way out, as no cause of death is certain in this case, and Karen cannot tell us what actually happened.

The magistrate said it wasn't her job to take the role of the Supreme Court Justice who would be instructing the jury by downgrading the charge at this stage.
Borce Ristevski to stand trial for wife's murder

 

[SouthAussie]

This is the kind of sentencing that has happened in Victoria for manslaughter over recent years.

Imprisonment terms ranged from 1 year, 5 months and 19 days (with a two-year community correction order) to 12 years ...
The most common length of imprisonment imposed was 8 to less than 9 years.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.g...ents/Snapshot_199_Manslaughter_April_2017.pdf

 

[Trooper]

As expected... It would have been a radical and political ning nong magistrate who would not clap down on moving it along to the Supreme Court for a murder trial.

I still keep grinning at it being Macedonian Republic day... Borce and Vlasko must wonder sometimes how they could manage to escape Macedonia and then fall into such trouble and woe in Au... that requires a lot of concentration and application. There is nothing accidental about the criminal spectrum of these two.

It's a good time to remember just who is forking out for all this jiggery-pokery, Borce and his unemotional face claiming not guilty.. it's a matter of can he sustain that? Because Borce isn't using his own money, unlike Our Boy Gerard who used his and his dad's and Allisons money to play out his performance right to the end.

Borce is using our money, and that isn't spent recklessly.. I fully expect a guilty plea somewhere around 10 days or a week before his trial begins.

Should he get advice to plead not guilty, it will be up to the DPP to present such a case that a jury, properly advised , wouldn't be able to see their way to considering any thing less than murder .

But I reckon Borce will fold. The money isn't his to hurl around on experts in telemetry, engineering, psychology etc.

Just remember , Borce, part of your sentence will be composed of the public view of you as one of Melbourne's most stupid of men …. don't forget that.

If he gets bail I'm moving to NZ.... I just give up, if Borce gets bail . He should remain on remand the entire waiting period.

 

[wewillgetyou]

I think Borce is far too arrogant ( just like Gerard BC was ) to plead guilty, of anything !

 

[SouthAussie]

If he gets bail I'm moving to NZ.... I just give up, if Borce gets bail . He should remain on remand the entire waiting period.

Oh, me too. If he gets bail I am moving to NZ right along with you!

I am so sick and tired of murderers getting bail so they can 'help prepare their case' (one of the exceptional circumstances allowed, as per Simon Gittany's case. Simon roamed around for about 2 years on bail before he went to trial and was convicted).

Let them sit in jail and help prepare their case, like all good/bad murderers should do!

 

[Trooper]

I think Borce is far too arrogant ( just like Gerard BC was ) to plead guilty, of anything !

Oh if Borce had his way, he'd be suing the police for even questioning him.... but.. It wont be Borce's way.. he wont want to, but he is 53? he'll be at least 54, maybe 55 by the time he goes to trial and that discount for pleading guilty will look like sunshine to Borce, by then.

I was curious, too, that his defence , not that they have to at a committal, but it would have been tactically advantageous, if they had hinted at what the husband actually thinks did happen to his wife. But nothing!... Borce is going to maintain the mystery aspect of a human being evaporating into thin air. .

 

[Trooper]

Naturally, Borce can carry on pleading not guilty, but it's highly likely , in that case, that his appointed barristers will remove themselves, ( or Borce , in a bad tempered performance , will fire them ) and he will have to represent himself..

And he is that risible, that absurd and ridiculous that he might play that scenario out to the absolute wire, it's not unheard of...

 

[JLZ]

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)

Section 421 – Alternative Verdicts on Charge of Murder

(1) On an indictment for murder a person found not guilty of murder may be found guilty of—


(a) manslaughter;

(ab) child homicide;

(b) any offence of which he may be found guilty under an enactment specifically so providing;

(c) an offence against section 325; or

(d) an attempt to commit murder or an attempt to commit any offence of which he may by virtue of this sub-section be found guilty—

but may not be found guilty of any other offence.

3.9.1.2 - Legislation: Alternative Verdicts


This is my understanding: that if the accused is charged with murder only, the jury may find not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

 

[sosocurious]

By grant of special leave, the Crown appealed to the High Court. It was common ground on the appeal that the respondent killed his wife. The High Court held that the hypothesis on which the Court of Appeal acted was not available on the evidence. At the trial, the respondent denied that he had fought with his wife, killed her and disposed of her body. His evidence, being the evidence of the only person who could give evidence on the issue, was inconsistent with that hypothesis. Further, the jury were entitled to regard the whole of the evidence as satisfying them beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent acted with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm when he killed his wife. The Court ordered that the respondent's conviction for murder be restored.


H IGH C OU R T O F A U S T R A L IA - THE QUEEN v BADEN-CLAY
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2016/hca-35-2016-08-31.pdf

After hearing two weeks of witness testimony and considering a 22,000 page police brief, Magistrate Cameron found there is sufficient evidence to support a murder conviction.

She stated: "Given the nature, extent and duration of alleged post offence conduct in this matter, I'm of the view it would be open to a jury, properly instructed, to be satisfied that the accused caused the death of Karen Ristevski and at the time had a murderous intent.”

What happened to Karen Ristevski?

Borce has admitted he argued with his wife over money before she left to clear her head.
It seems to me that for manslaughter charge to even be a considered Borce would have to take the stand and tell his accidental or self defense version of events. He would still need to explain his post offence conduct though.

I feel he will plead guilty as the trial nears.

 

[SouthAussie]

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)

Section 421 – Alternative Verdicts on Charge of Murder

(1) On an indictment for murder a person found not guilty of murder may be found guilty of—


(a) manslaughter;

(ab) child homicide;

(b) any offence of which he may be found guilty under an enactment specifically so providing;

(c) an offence against section 325; or

(d) an attempt to commit murder or an attempt to commit any offence of which he may by virtue of this sub-section be found guilty—

but may not be found guilty of any other offence.

3.9.1.2 - Legislation: Alternative Verdicts


This is my understanding: that if the accused is charged with murder only, the jury may find not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

Dammit. What a shame. I guess that the judge will instruct the jury that way then.

I guess that Borce's lawyers were pushing for the charge to be reduced beforehand to get the possibility of a murder conviction off the page.

Not to worry, sounds as if the prosecution have a bucket load of evidence, and a precedent or two to back them up.

 

[tmar]

Naturally, Borce can carry on pleading not guilty, but it's highly likely , in that case, that his appointed barristers will remove themselves, ( or Borce , in a bad tempered performance , will fire them ) and he will have to represent himself..

And he is that risible, that absurd and ridiculous that he might play that scenario out to the absolute wire, it's not unheard of...

Well Rob Stary and Co. are involved in "Red Shirt Labour" problem at present.
Rob Stary appeared on 9 News last night, about this: so very busy, maybe much too busy for BR, and his antics. That would be terrific

Also would these Defence lawyers bail out now, if consider Guilty is the clear result. Their reputation is important.

 

[Trooper]

edited by me


After hearing two weeks of witness testimony and considering a 22,000 page police brief, Magistrate Cameron found there is sufficient evidence to support a murder conviction.

She stated: "Given the nature, extent and duration of alleged post offence conduct in this matter, I'm of the view it would be open to a jury, properly instructed, to be satisfied that the accused caused the death of Karen Ristevski and at the time had a murderous intent.”

I feel he will plead guilty as the trial nears.

I just love the 'properly instructed' bit. This is the remit of the DPP, and Victoria has some really outstanding examples of this species. There is a lot of material to work with in the area of Borce's 'murderous intent' too, much to play around with, and so very little room for the defence to wriggle.

Sarah is not a credible witness for Borce. much of what she says is contradictory to the demonstrated facts, for example, Sarah = the business was fine V the Forensic accountant = the business was dead on it's feet. etc..

As to what other witnesses Borce will, or can bring in, complete mystery.. It could be Vlasko, but that would be a very dicey business, I would think. Ant? good luck with that. Mrs Vlasko?.. dubious. .

It all adds up to an interesting event , once one removes the hideous and brutal murder of a woman in the prime of her life.

 

[sosocurious]

Dammit. What a shame. I guess that the judge will instruct the jury that way then.

I guess that Borce's lawyers were pushing for the charge to be reduced beforehand to get the possibility of a murder conviction off the page.

Not to worry, sounds as if the prosecution have a bucket load of evidence, and a precedent or two to back them up.

I agree.
If Borce had been able to get murder off the table. I feel he would have pleaded guilty in a heartbeat. Murder well does he sit through the trial in the hope that a properly instructed jury will beyond reasonable doubt find him not guilty of murder and consider him guilty of manslaughter?

 

[JLZ]

By grant of special leave, the Crown appealed to the High Court. It was common ground on the appeal that the respondent killed his wife. The High Court held that the hypothesis on which the Court of Appeal acted was not available on the evidence. At the trial, the respondent denied that he had fought with his wife, killed her and disposed of her body. His evidence, being the evidence of the only person who could give evidence on the issue, was inconsistent with that hypothesis. Further, the jury were entitled to regard the whole of the evidence as satisfying them beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent acted with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm when he killed his wife. The Court ordered that the respondent's conviction for murder be restored.


H IGH C OU R T O F A U S T R A L IA - THE QUEEN v BADEN-CLAY
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2016/hca-35-2016-08-31.pdf

After hearing two weeks of witness testimony and considering a 22,000 page police brief, Magistrate Cameron found there is sufficient evidence to support a murder conviction.

She stated: "Given the nature, extent and duration of alleged post offence conduct in this matter, I'm of the view it would be open to a jury, properly instructed, to be satisfied that the accused caused the death of Karen Ristevski and at the time had a murderous intent.”

What happened to Karen Ristevski?

Borce has admitted he argued with his wife over money before she left to clear her head.
It seems to me that for manslaughter charge to even be a considered Borce would have to take the stand and tell his accidental or self defense version of events. He would still need to explain his post offence conduct though.

I feel he will plead guilty as the trial nears.

Dammit. What a shame. I guess that the judge will instruct the jury that way then.

I guess that Borce's lawyers were pushing for the charge to be reduced beforehand to get the possibility of a murder conviction off the page.

Not to worry, sounds as if the prosecution have a bucket load of evidence, and a precedent or two to back them up.

It's tricky.

26. While the judge should not direct the jury about manslaughter if there is no viable case, he or she must not lead the jury to understand that a manslaughter verdict is beyond their power. The jury has the right under Crimes Act 1958 s421(1) to return such a verdict, even if it is not open on the evidence (a “merciful verdict”) (Gammage v R (1969) 122 CLR 444; Packett v R (1937) 58 CLR 190).[8]

3.9.1.1 - Bench Notes: Alternative Verdicts

In any case, the jury is supposed to come to a decision about the murder charge first, and only consider manslaughter if they've decided not guilty to murder. If the jury can't reach agreement as to murder, they're not allowed to give a verdict for manslaughter as a sort of compromise.