Found Deceased Australia - Karen Ristevski, 47, Melbourne, Vic, 29 June 2016 - #3

[Bohemian]

For me this goes back to the business Warrant Brand owned by the two brothers. In which i have posted in both first and second threads.

After this split, business wise VR goes off in another direction. I would be looking into the personal relationship between, BR and VR after this point.

Again, I concur.

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

It seems that the tavern opens at 11am daily, according to their website. (9am according to a website that reviewed them.) Has a bistro, pokies, beer garden, dining rooms.

I wonder if this is the closest or best out-of-the-way place to go, where she may not run into people she knew?

But, why wouldn't she take her car?

http://www.anglers-tavern.com.au/about
http://www.mietta.com/Australia/Victoria/MARIBYRNONG/Anglers_Tavern

BIB:

:thinking: She wanted/needed a drink and didn't want to risk driving afterwards? Maybe?

 

[Armchair snoop]

Again, I concur.

I think authorities should look into this relationship but going by the interview VR gave on MSM, I don't think he has the intelligence to plan anything elaborate.

 

[Makara]

To put this in a nutshell, who would benefit from Karen disappearing and/or being deceased?

Who had the motive, means and opportunity to murder Karen?

 

[Unit45]

I think authorities should look into this relationship but going by the interview VR gave on MSM, I don't think he has the intelligence to plan anything elaborate.

''

Yes they should,

I'd be holding fire on whether someone has the intelligence or not to be complicit, dosent always come down to intelligence.

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

It's unfair, under the current circumstances; to Karen, Borce, and especially Sarah. Bottom line.

I wholeheartedly agree. In my opinion, what AR has done is despicable. He calls his father a cowered (sic), but it's actually the other way round in my eyes. Choosing to use FB and the media as a platform to get HIS story out there instead of going to the police and letting them handle the situation and doing it AFTER the very person he is accusing is not around to tell her side of the story and defend herself. Despicable behaviour to say the least! MOO

 

[Bohemian]

To put this in a nutshell, who would benefit from Karen disappearing and/or being deceased?

Who had the motive, means and opportunity to murder Karen?

On paper; BR 'fits the bill', but if investigators had evidence that he was an alleged perpetrator, wouldn't they have charged him by now? In reality, the person who 'fits the bill' on paper is not always ultimately found responsible for the alleged crime.

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

To put this in a nutshell, who would benefit from Karen disappearing and/or being deceased?

Who had the motive, means and opportunity to murder Karen?

:thinking: I think there's several...too many to name! Maybe there are several, all in it together? :scared:

 

[sleepinoz]

To put this in a nutshell, who would benefit from Karen disappearing and/or being deceased?

Who had the motive, means and opportunity to murder Karen?

There has only been 2 people questioned by the Police (that we know about) - both BR and AR.

Motive, means and opportunity could be found for both IMO - given more info.

The question of "Who would benefit?" is the main question for me.

BR wouldn't benefit financially for years to come - AR's benefit, well his 15 mins of fame perhaps? A start to healing? A relationship with his father? (Doubt that one)

Neither would have an immediate benefit IMO.

It's possible that the only short term financial benefit would be to one of the businesses.

IF and I would say it's a big IF - any of their business had taken out a 'Key Person" Insurance Policy on Karen, it could be possible to make a claim. The Company would be the beneficiary not an individual (but then there is creative accounting :thinking: )

Key Person insurance can be taken out by any business to cover illness, death, incapacity etc of any person deemed to be important for the business to continue to make profits. The actual Policy wording itself would have to cover "Losses related to the extended period when a key person is unable to work" to cover a missing person I imagine. Even though it's a long shot, it's not impossible and it wouldn't take as long to claim on the Policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_person_insurance

 

[Makara]

On paper; BR 'fits the bill', but if investigators had evidence that he was an alleged perpetrator, wouldn't they have charged him by now? In reality, the person who 'fits the bill' on paper is not always ultimately found responsible for the alleged crime.

We don't know what evidence the investigators may have at this stage. I think you answered your own question in that if BR fits the bill on paper, the reason why he hasn't been charged is "in reality, the person who fits the bill on paper is not always ultimately found responsible fo the alleged crime."

The questions I posed are what the police ask in any criminal case. Who would benefit and who had the motive, means and opportunity. I was just throwing it out there to do a bit of brainstorming without trying to guess what the investigators may know or not know.

 

[Makara]

There has only been 2 people questioned by the Police (that we know about) - both BR and AR.

Motive, means and opportunity could be found for both IMO - given more info.

The question of "Who would benefit?" is the main question for me.

BR wouldn't benefit financially for years to come - AR's benefit, well his 15 mins of fame perhaps? A start to healing? A relationship with his father? (Doubt that one)

Neither would have an immediate benefit IMO.

It's possible that the only short term financial benefit would be to one of the businesses.

IF and I would say it's a big IF - any of their business had taken out a 'Key Person" Insurance Policy on Karen, it could be possible to make a claim. The Company would be the beneficiary not an individual (but then there is creative accounting :thinking: )

Key Person insurance can be taken out by any business to cover illness, death, incapacity etc of any person deemed to be important for the business to continue to make profits. The actual Policy wording itself would have to cover "Losses related to the extended period when a key person is unable to work" to cover a missing person I imagine. Even though it's a long shot, it's not impossible and it wouldn't take as long to claim on the Policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_person_insurance

Thanks Sleep. Good post and intelligent thought processes at work there.

Another question. How would Karen benefit by disappearing herself? She had the means and opportunity but what would be the motive? They'd had financial problems for years if we are to believe MSM, so I'm not convinced that would be a motive. IMO I don't think the 'shame' of AR outing the 'family secret' would be a motive for Karen to take off. By all accounts it was a well known 'family secret' between friends and family members.

IMO I don't believe Karen has taken off and is in hiding. I believe that she has met with foul play and is deceased. Hence my initial question. Who would benefit and had the motive, means and opportunity to murder Karen.

 

[Bohemian]

We don't know what evidence the investigators may have at this stage. I think you answered your own question in that if BR fits the bill on paper, the reason why he hasn't been charged is "in reality, the person who fits the bill on paper is not always ultimately found responsible fo the alleged crime."

The questions I posed are what the police ask in any criminal case. Who would benefit and who had the motive, means and opportunity. I was just throwing it out there to do a bit of brainstorming without trying to guess what the investigators may know or not know.

Yes, I know Makara. Yours are exactly the same questions I keep asking myself, over and over again - the 5Ws and 1H. My question was rhetorical in many ways. AR, I also 'get', given his erratic comments online and in MSM. I can't answer my question, or yours, fully because the person that may also 'fit the bill' on paper hasn't been reported as being interviewed in connection to Karen's disappearance by investigators AFAIK. Any mention would be against WS' TOS.

 

[Unit45]

If we minds see something that bothers us and intrigues, im sure that those that get paid to do this for a living have already be looking at ways to turn this into a conviction.

Moreover whats not been talked about in MSM is in my mind what is being looked at.

 

[Armchair snoop]

So many great posts with so many great thoughts, just wish there were as many great answers from those in the know.

 

[Makara]

Yes, I know Makara. Yours are exactly the same questions I keep asking myself, over and over again - the 5Ws and 1H. My question was rhetorical in many ways. AR, I also 'get', given his erratic comments online and in MSM. I can't answer my question, or yours, fully because the person that may also 'fit the bill' on paper hasn't been reported as being interviewed in connection to Karen's disappearance by investigators AFAIK. Any mention would be against WS' TOS.

Thanks Bo. Yes, I understand what you're saying and fully agree that we can't name certain people and that's not what I was wanting anyone to do. I suppose my initial questions were more for everyone to think more deeply about the whole crux of this case. I've often read posts on various threads that have got me really thinking and I've tossed ideas around in my head for hours/days afterwards.

 

[sleepinoz]

Thanks Sleep. Good post and intelligent thought processes at work there.

Another question. How would Karen benefit by disappearing herself? She had the means and opportunity but what would be the motive? They'd had financial problems for years if we are to believe MSM, so I'm not convinced that would be a motive. IMO I don't think the 'shame' of AR outing the 'family secret' would be a motive for Karen take off. By all accounts it was a well known 'family secret' between friends and family members.

IMO I don't believe Karen has taken off and is in hiding. I believe that she has met with foul play and is deceased. Hence my initial question. Who would benefit and had the motive, means and opportunity to murder Karen.

IMO there could be a couple of motives for Karen to disappear.

- Financial - walk away from any existing debt or the business claims Key Person Policy to cover the business debt/remove caveat from the home and then reappear.
- Reputation - AR and his "allegations" would be enough IMO if she considered her lifestyle and reputation important - if her rep is ruined it would be the final nail in the coffin for the business.

It could even just be that with everything going on she couldn't handle it anymore and wanted out.

I'm not too sure she hasn't taken off on her own, if she has sympathetic friends to help her she could stay hidden for some time.

With the little info we've been given I'm still wavering between scenario's at this stage. I think everything is still in play - foul play, suicide and voluntary missing.

 

[Madge_Ick_Dike]

I think it's an open and shut DV murder and she's in the river. I know they searched already. But I think she's there. I don't necessarily think BV was the abusive one in the family either. Battered Woman Syndrome should be renamed Battered Spouse Syndrome.

VR : "the family WAS close"
why is that past tense - I don't think English is his first language so it might not be significant.

I think the statement from police saying they find AR'S claims "credible" is extremely telling. They believe him. I think any good detective wants iron clad evidence before bringing charges. And they are in no hurry because this was an accident, not premeditated, he is not a danger to anyone else.

All my own opinion obviously and again I am very happy to eat my words if I'm wrong.

 

[Makara]

IMO there could be a couple of motives for Karen to disappear.

- Financial - walk away from any existing debt or the business claims Key Person Policy to cover the business debt/remove caveat from the home and then reappear.
- Reputation - AR and his "allegations" would be enough IMO if she considered her lifestyle and reputation important - if her rep is ruined it would be the final nail in the coffin for the business.

It could even just be that with everything going on she couldn't handle it anymore and wanted out.

I'm not too sure she hasn't taken off on her own, if she has sympathetic friends to help her she could stay hidden for some time.

With the little info we've been given I'm still wavering between scenario's at this stage. I think everything is still in play - foul play, suicide and voluntary missing.

BBM: In this scenario wouldn't Karen or whoever claimed the Key Person policy be charged with fraud?

 

[sleepinoz]

BBM: In this scenario wouldn't Karen or whoever claimed the Key Person policy be charged with fraud?

Karen wouldn't have made a fraudulent claim, the person/business making the claim would be in trouble if it's proved that it was a set up to purposely make the claim. Karen could be charged as accessory I suppose.

lol - I did say it was a long shot :blushing:

 

[Bohemian]

Thanks Bo. Yes, I understand what you're saying and fully agree that we can't name certain people and that's not what I was wanting anyone to do. I suppose my initial questions were more for everyone to think more deeply about the whole crux of this case. I've often read posts on various threads that have got me really thinking and I've tossed ideas around in my head for hours/days afterwards.

So I answered your rhetorical question with one of my own :floorlaugh: (See, Puggs, I can do it too)

I know the feeling, Makara. Sometimes I take a leaf out of Edward de Bono's book 'Lateral Thinking' (an oldie but a goodie) and think of the characteristics of butter, for example; it's yellow, its shape, etc. It gives the mind a chance to process information and throw up the answers to your questions - usually at the most surprising and inopportune times.