Found Deceased Australia - Karen Ristevski, 47, Melbourne, Vic, 29 June 2016 - #6

[1968]

In this image it appears SR is substantially bigger than her tiny Mum so answered my own question. They probably didn't share shoes.

 

[1968]

Agreed. Shoes would be complimentary to the outfit. If police knew they were black (or cream, or gold, or whatever) they could have thrown that colour shoe onto the mannequin.
I would imagine Karen's work associates would have a good idea of what Karen would wear with certain work outfits.

I've also wondered if Karen left a pair of trusty sneakers by the door for her walks.

You would think so South Aussie. Or in the garage or whatever. If she was in the habit of exiting that way.

 

[JLZ]

We seem to be at cross-purposes about the shoes. As I see it, if Karen left the house voluntarily, she was wearing shoes. So if you can establish that no shoes are missing, that's evidence that she did not go voluntarily. Suppose Sarah does say, for example, that she always wore cream shoes with that outfit. You go to Karen's shoe stash, there are no cream shoes, great, some shoes are missing, either she left wearing them, either dead or alive, or maybe the murderer chucked them away afterwards together with her handbag, or maybe they wore out a few weeks ago, she put them in the rubbish and hadn't had time to replace them. But what if there are five pairs of cream shoes? Are any shoes missing or not? You don't know.

Take the other approach, you ask her husband whether she was wearing shoes when she left, what did she usually wear to work, well how tall did she appear to be, etc. Whether he killed her or not, he isn't likely to say she went for a walk bare-footed. If he says he thinks she was wearing cream shoes and you confront him with the five (or however many) pairs in the wardrobe, so what? What's to say she didn't have another, similar pair?

You people who insist that it must be possible for her relatives to say what was on Karen's feet . . . I'd like to know where you're taking the argument.

 

[Pepper77]

I wonder how Karen stored her shoes? A lot of women use those plastic see-through boxes on which they include a photo of the shoes in the box. This isn't a particularly new idea, and as someone who is a follower of fashion and clearly takes pride in her appearance (judging by the photos), it could possibly be something she does. It would be helpful if those sort of details were released - if only because if there is a sinister reason for her disappearance I'm sure the empty box has been tossed in the bin by now by someone attempting to cover their tracks (assuming she was wearing shoes normally stored in one) ... sometimes it's the smallest details such as this that could unravel the mystery.

If she had gone for a 'walk' however, then maybe she had a pair of old flats or sports shoes by the door. But I don't think she went for a walk at all. Why not a drive instead? Without knowing her it's hard to know how she'd act in any given situation but if it was me and I had a cute little car like hers I would definitely go for a drive to cool off.

 

[Pepper77]

We seem to be at cross-purposes about the shoes. As I see it, if Karen left the house voluntarily, she was wearing shoes. So if you can establish that no shoes are missing, that's evidence that she did not go voluntarily. Suppose Sarah does say, for example, that she always wore cream shoes with that outfit. You go to Karen's shoe stash, there are no cream shoes, great, some shoes are missing, either she left wearing them, either dead or alive, or maybe the murderer chucked them away afterwards together with her handbag, or maybe they wore out a few weeks ago, she put them in the rubbish and hadn't had time to replace them. But what if there are five pairs of cream shoes? Are any shoes missing or not? You don't know.

Take the other approach, you ask her husband whether she was wearing shoes when she left, what did she usually wear to work, well how tall did she appear to be, etc. Whether he killed her or not, he isn't likely to say she went for a walk bare-footed. If he says he thinks she was wearing cream shoes and you confront him with the five (or however many) pairs in the wardrobe, so what? What's to say she didn't have another, similar pair?

You people who insist that it must be possible for her relatives to say what was on Karen's feet . . . I'd like to know where you're taking the argument.

JLZ - you do, of course, raise some very valid points. And she could very well have had multiple pairs of shoes that all looked the same.

See my post above - if she did catalogue and store her shoes using a library-type system then sweet - there are a few angles to explore from there. But if she tossed her shoes in the bottom of the wardrobe then who only knows what could be missing and/or thrown out by Karen prior to her disappearance.

There is no way she would've left the house barefoot - firstly because it's Winter; and secondly because, snakes!

 

[JLZ]

In summary: much more difficult to prove that no pair of shoes is missing, than that a pair of shoes is missing. And it's the first proposition that would be useful.

 

[Estelle]

I wonder how Karen stored her shoes? A lot of women use those plastic see-through boxes on which they include a photo of the shoes in the box. This isn't a particularly new idea, and as someone who is a follower of fashion and clearly takes pride in her appearance (judging by the photos), it could possibly be something she does. It would be helpful if those sort of details were released - if only because if there is a sinister reason for her disappearance I'm sure the empty box has been tossed in the bin by now by someone attempting to cover their tracks (assuming she was wearing shoes normally stored in one) ... sometimes it's the smallest details such as this that could unravel the mystery.

If she had gone for a 'walk' however, then maybe she had a pair of old flats or sports shoes by the door. But I don't think she went for a walk at all. Why not a drive instead? Without knowing her it's hard to know how she'd act in any given situation but if it was me and I had a cute little car like hers I would definitely go for a drive to cool off.

But BR could not say she went for a drive as he probably took her in her own car. Later he had to explain that he drove her car trying to fix the fuel gauge.

 

[Estelle]

JLZ - you do, of course, raise some very valid points. And she could very well have had multiple pairs of shoes that all looked the same.

See my post above - if she did catalogue and store her shoes using a library-type system then sweet - there are a few angles to explore from there. But if she tossed her shoes in the bottom of the wardrobe then who only knows what could be missing and/or thrown out by Karen prior to her disappearance.

There is no way she would've left the house barefoot - firstly because it's Winter; and secondly because, snakes!

Surely the police would have asked BR to describe the colour of the shoes she was wearing or the shoes she normally wore when she went for walks as well as if they were flat shoes, sneakers or high heels. She could have left wearing high heels if this argument became unexpectedly explosive and she just wanted to get out of the house quickly. But she probably did not go on any walk at all and the police know that. The only reason for her not to have shoes on would be because of foul play. Few people walk around the house in bare feet in winter.

 

[Estelle]

Do you think BR looks capable enough to carry Karen's body to her car alone and carry it from her car to her graveside? Or do you think he would have had to have had help?

If so, who would have helped him that he could trust?

 

[JLZ]

Do you think BR looks capable enough to carry Karen's body to her car alone and carry it from her car to her graveside? Or do you think he would have had to have had help?

If so, who would have helped him that he could trust?

Yes I think he could lift her, or drag her.

 

[SouthAussie]

Do you think BR looks capable enough to carry Karen's body to her car alone and carry it from her car to her graveside? Or do you think he would have had to have had help?

If so, who would have helped him that he could trust?

I think this could be a one-person crime, for sure. Karen looks slight of build. And adrenalin coursing through a killer's veins would add more to their usual physical strength.

 

[Pepper77]

Do you think BR looks capable enough to carry Karen's body to her car alone and carry it from her car to her graveside? Or do you think he would have had to have had help?

If so, who would have helped him that he could trust?

I don't think he was the cause of her disappearance. I believe events that he was involved with led up to her going missing but I don't think he actually carried out any act.

I do think he would be able to carry her - she was (by media accounts) quite petite, and he looks quite strong.

 

[Estelle]

I don't think he was the cause of her disappearance. I believe events that he was involved with led up to her going missing but I don't think he actually carried out any act.

.

Why do you think that?

Do you think he got someone else to do it for him? If so, who?

Aren't you suspicious of him as he appears to have lied?

How could someone else have got access to her?

What scenario are you envisaging?

 

[Pepper77]

Why do you think that?

Do you think he got someone else to do it for him? If so, who?

Aren't you suspicious of him as he appears to have lied?

How could someone else have got access to her?

What scenario are you envisaging?

I just don't get that feeling about him. I've to-ed and fro-ed about various scenarios since thread 1 ... at first I thought his brother might have had something to do with it; then I thought she'd just gone of her own accord; then I went back to thinking the brother is involved; now, I think she perhaps got involved in something she couldn't find her way out of ... whatever this 'thing' is, I think her immediate family are probably in the know, and I am absolutely certain it has to do with money (it nearly always is) ... the whole 'taking the car out to fix the petrol gauge' story was just weird and made me think that the husband knows more than I first thought he might. Petrol gauges very rarely fix themselves - our mechanic has never been able to fix ours (not a Merc, but even still), so that might be his undoing, who knows. I don't think he's a killer but I do find it strange he took her car at that particular moment (was he expecting her to come back and take his car?).

 

[Gigi30]

I'm going out on a limb here but I personally don't think it has anything to do with her inheritance, no enough money for it to be a motivating factor. Now that KR's brother appears to be in support of Borce I am leaning even more to the theory that AR is involved.

 

[ozazure]

This whole shoe thing is so meta - I bet The Australian got the idea to write about the shoes from reading here, it was a pretty hollow piece but it is something to write about that isn't speculation on a specific suspect. In turn we are now we are re-discussing the shoes!! I think there is a good chance Sarah knows what her mum's main shoes are and if they are all accounted for this will be a niggling doubt for her.

I feel for Karen's brother, I think he is in a similar situation to Sarah in that whilst Borce looks good for this from the outside, it really is hard for them to believe it could be him.

Someone asked about cadaver dogs. I don't think they are used as much here but I could be wrong. I looked up about the dog squad and they ae not mentioned http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=171 (the dog squad headquarters are not far from the key locations in this case).

 

[Pepper77]

I'm happy that they printed the article about the shoes because it keeps Karen's disappearance in the spotlight. If someone is involved in her disappearance they seem to have covered their tracks extremely well up to this point; who knows what will happen in the future but by people continuing to talk about it, she will hopefully be found soon.

As someone said many, many posts ago, it seems that something new is printed every weekend ... I hope that continues for as long as possible.

 

[Itsapuzzle]

I wonder if SR recalls what her father was wearing, before she last saw him that morning?
Are those clothes still at the house or did he discard them?
If he was dressed, does SR recall if they were the same clothes BR was in when she came back home?
Does BR have any missing shoes? He may have discarded his soiled shoes.
Will the cctv footage capture any details of clothing he may of been wearing when he was in the car leaving property? Are these the same as he was in that evening when he may have spoken to police in person?

Hey Moreinfo, that is a super interesting series of questions ..... oh boy, yes, my mind has been so consumed with KRs shoes ...... but yes indeed, what the heck was BR wearing, completely relevant ...... excellent point there.

 

[Itsapuzzle]

I'm going out on a limb here but I personally don't think it has anything to do with her inheritance, no enough money for it to be a motivating factor. Now that KR's brother appears to be in support of Borce I am leaning even more to the theory that AR is involved.

Yes, Gig30, I don't think it's about money either. I reckon it's all related to AR, his phoning KR 10 days beforehand ......

 

[moreinfo]

I'd like to know WHY BR has teamed up with top criminal lawyer Robert Stary (best known for defending Julian Assange and Carl Williams).
He'd be paying big bucks and it doesn't look like any of it will be retrievable (might be wrong) So he must have lots of disposable cash somewhere.
So then it takes me back to thinking and I dont think Borce had a financial motive if he is responsible for Karens fate.

From what I read from their website
"If I win my case can I claim my legal costs?
Yes you can in the Magistrates’ Court but this is at the discretion of the Magistrate.
Costs cannot be recovered in the County Court or the Supreme Court."