Yes . . . . At the time of the ruling, the prosecution had conceded that its case relied on the post-offence conduct as the sole evidence of intention.
Found Deceased Australia - Karen Ristevski, 47, Melbourne, Vic, 29 June 2016 - #18 *Arrest*
- Thread starter Greater Than
- Start date
I always thought it strange in Baden-Clay that the prosecution did not try to argue that the financial situation formed part of the motive. I wonder if it's common for prosecutors to avoid presenting financial evidence--perhaps they think juries are too stupid.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 33,200
- Reaction score
- 217,549
Well, I read an article about juries ... and that well could be the case.
Too mind boggling for the average juror to try to wrap their heads around.
Though, I would think that it would be up to the prosecution to find an expert financial analyst who could explain it all in laymans terms.
Sometimes it appears to gets too much for them. I've seen jurors nod off on the job. Others have whiled away the hours passing notes to one another, giggling like naughty school kids. But most seem to have a glazed indifference about it all as they stare into space, no doubt marking off the hours until they can return to their normal lives.
You may, as appears to have been the case among the recently discharged jury in the Gordon Wood trial, get a couple of complete idiots.
It's difficult for judges to see what jurors are up to. In June this year, a $1 million drug trial was aborted after a number of jurors admitted to playing Sudoku, unnoticed, for much of the sixty-six day trial.
The trouble with juries
So he "just" did!
WORDS NEVER LIE, that is the beauty of Statement Analysis (SA). From FB posts to comments in the media, there is alot we can learn from people's words!
In SA, ideally we look for a strong and reliable denial "No, I did not do it". BR was asked "Did you kill Karen?" by the reporter. This was his opportunity to issue a reliable denial. He chose not to and remained silent. "Just" silence.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2018
- Messages
- 1,398
- Reaction score
- 8,558
I have looked up this page:So he "just" did!
WORDS NEVER LIE, that is the beauty of Statement Analysis (SA). From FB posts to comments in the media, there is alot we can learn from people's words!
In SA, ideally we look for a strong and reliable denial "No, I did not do it". BR was asked "Did you kill Karen?" by the reporter. This was his opportunity to issue a reliable denial. He chose not to and remained silent. "Just" silence.
Statement analysis - Wikipedia
Sapir claims that it is almost impossible for a guilty person to say "I didn't do it." He asserts that guilty people tend to speak in even greater circumlocutions by saying things like "I had nothing to do with it" or "I am not involved in that".
So.. There was another interesting line from Borce, after Karen's body had been discovered:
But when a reporter rang him on February 20 to say Karen’s body has been found, he distanced himself saying: “Well It’s got nothing to do with me.”
straight from the textbook.However, once one has been imprisoned, there must be plenty of opportunities to learn such theories and even game them. Because I just noticed Kathleen Folbigg said at the inquiry:
“I don’t know why any of my children died, but I didn’t kill them,” she told the court.
I have looked up this page:
Statement analysis - Wikipedia
Sapir claims that it is almost impossible for a guilty person to say "I didn't do it." He asserts that guilty people tend to speak in even greater circumlocutions by saying things like "I had nothing to do with it" or "I am not involved in that".
So.. There was another interesting line from Borce, after Karen's body had been discovered:
But when a reporter rang him on February 20 to say Karen’s body has been found, he distanced himself saying: “Well It’s got nothing to do with me.”
However, once one has been imprisoned, there must be plenty of opportunities to learn such theories and even game them. Because I just noticed Kathleen Folbigg said at the inquiry:
“I don’t know why any of my children died, but I didn’t kill them,” she told the court.
Absolutely VM!
You have raised another major point: Alibi building - guilty persons will often resort to attempts to build an alibi ("it couldn't possibly be me"), offering extra information when they were not asked. This is highly sensitive in SA.
BR, unsolicited and without being asked, responds to a reporters comment that it looks like they have located Karen's body in Macedon. He attempts to build an alibi by volunteering "Well it’s got nothing to do with me.” Nobody asked him if it had anything to do with him, but he felt the need to say it. Why? His words indicate this was a very sensitive topic for him and as pointed out was trying to distance himself from this. We now know why.
Many SA experts can listen to a 911 / 000 call and gain much insight into whether reported missing persons are already likely deceased and can indicate the callers possible involvement and truthfulness of what they are saying.
For example, when the missing person is referred to in the past tense, this can indicate the person is already deceased. This also indicates the caller has knowledge of this.
"My Dad is missing (present tense), I don't know what do, I am so upset, he was such a great man (past tense) . Please help me."
The information provided by a caller in order of priority is also important in SA.
"Hello, please help, I came home from shopping and when I walked into the garage I saw my husband on the ground, please help me, hurry. "
Priorities:
1. Please help
2. I came home from shopping (irrelevant information / alibi building - it couldn't be me)
3. I walked into the garage (irrelevant, why is she telling us this? Raises questions did she actually walk in or drive in)
4. I saw my husband on the ground (doesn't tell us whether he is alive or dead)
5. Please help me (asking for help for herself, not her deceased or injured husband)
6. Hurry
In SA, they also note what would be expected and what is unexpected. More expected for a concerned wife who truly found her husband on the garage floor would be:
"Hello, I need an Ambulance urgently, my husband is not breathing, hurry please."
These are just some very basic SA things to look out for, SA goes alot deeper and analyses a document / words in full with many factors. The great thing is that WORDS NEVER LIE
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 33,200
- Reaction score
- 217,549
I wonder what statement analysis has to say about Sarah's glowing reference for her father.
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 15,620
- Reaction score
- 105,257
Guessing partly true, but I think she didn't come downstairs or out through the garage under her own steam, grrrr...
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2018
- Messages
- 1,398
- Reaction score
- 8,558
IMO literally true. Although he left out "carried by whom", and "without her shoes"...
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 33,200
- Reaction score
- 217,549
Criminal profiler believes Sarah Ristevski under killer dad’s ‘spell’
Now a London-based criminal profiler, who has trained law enforcement around the world, including police in NSW and FBI agents at Quantico, claims to have a possible explanation for the young woman’s actions.
Ms Richards, a criminal behavioural analyst who specialised in domestic violence risk assessment and homicide prevention at New Scotland Yard, believes Ms Ristevski is a victim of “coercive control” at her father’s hands.
She said the only way to reconcile Ms Ristevski’s continued support for the man who killed her mother was to accept that she “may be under his spell, which talks to his ability to manipulate and control those around him”.
"Coercive control impacts children as well."
.... Ms Richards wrote in an impassioned April 28 letter to the DPP.
“On good authority, male neighbours of the Ristevskis are joking that you can kill your wife and serve a few years behind bars — it might be worth it in the long run. Urgent law reform is needed. This case should warrant an upper range sentence. Respectfully review this case and bear in mind the message it sends out about domestic abuse.”
Wife-killer Borce Ristevski ‘played the system’
Now a London-based criminal profiler, who has trained law enforcement around the world, including police in NSW and FBI agents at Quantico, claims to have a possible explanation for the young woman’s actions.
Ms Richards, a criminal behavioural analyst who specialised in domestic violence risk assessment and homicide prevention at New Scotland Yard, believes Ms Ristevski is a victim of “coercive control” at her father’s hands.
She said the only way to reconcile Ms Ristevski’s continued support for the man who killed her mother was to accept that she “may be under his spell, which talks to his ability to manipulate and control those around him”.
"Coercive control impacts children as well."
.... Ms Richards wrote in an impassioned April 28 letter to the DPP.
“On good authority, male neighbours of the Ristevskis are joking that you can kill your wife and serve a few years behind bars — it might be worth it in the long run. Urgent law reform is needed. This case should warrant an upper range sentence. Respectfully review this case and bear in mind the message it sends out about domestic abuse.”
Wife-killer Borce Ristevski ‘played the system’
Snipped & BBM. I'm not sure. I can imagine murder combinations in my family where I'd stick by the killer. I wouldn't lie or cover up, but the reference, visiting and so on, absolutely. It's not because of coercive control. But perhaps I have the loyalty because they aren't people who'd do such a thing.
SouthernHighlands
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2017
- Messages
- 93
- Reaction score
- 268
Isn’t the only appeal area sentencing?
The downgrade to manslaughter was agreed, so nothing can be done to increase back to murder.
As to the sentencing:
Judge stated: “Without knowing the level and duration of the violence perpetrated by you which caused your wife’s death, I simply cannot say whether your offending was mid or upper range. I do not regard your silence as to how you killed your wife as providing a sufficiently firm basis for drawing the inference that yours must have been an upper range example of the offence of manslaughter.”
My research indicates that “In (VIC) determining whether a sentencing error has been made, the Court of Appeal considers such matters as:
1. the maximum sentence available to the original sentencing judge
2. how the original sentencing judge exercised the sentencing discretion
3. other sentences in similar cases
4. the seriousness of the offence
5. the personal circumstances of the offender.
Appeals Against Sentence | The Sentencing Advisory Council
the VIC manslaughter statistics I found were old “Between 2007-08 and 2011-12………….There were 3 successful appeals made by the Crown, each resulting in an increase in sentence length. The longest total effective imprisonment term to increase was a sentence of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years, which increased to 9 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years on appeal.”
And the stats for the 86 manslaughter sentences during that period were all dismally low:
Total effective imprisonment length Number of people
3 to less than 4 years 2
4 to less than 5 years 5
5 to less than 6 years 7
6 to less than 7 years 14
7 to less than 8 years 13
8 to less than 9 years 9
9 to less than 10 years 11
10 to less than 11 years 14
11 to less than 12 years 7
12 to less than 13 years 2
13 to less than 14 years 1
14 to less than 15 years 1
Stats for the offence of manslaughter in the Supreme Court of Victoria from 2011–12 to 2015–16 are set out below:
Figure 3: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment for manslaughter by length of imprisonment term, 2011–12 to 2015–16
Imprisonment length Number of people
1 to less than 2 years 1
2 to less than 3 years 0
3 to less than 4 years 1
4 to less than 5 years 4
5 to less than 6 years 8
6 to less than 7 years 5
7 to less than 8 years 12
8 to less than 9 years 17
9 to less than 10 years 7
10 to less than 11 years 7
11 to less than 12 years 6
12 to less than 13 years 2
People sentenced 70
Sentencing Trends for Manslaughter in the Higher Courts of Victoria 2011–12 to 2015–16 | The Sentencing Advisory Council
Boris’s sentence:
58 Borce Ristevski , please stand.
59 For the offence of manslaughter, I sentence you to nine years’ imprisonment.
60 I declare a nonparole period of six years.
61 I declare that you have already served 491 days by way of presentence detention.
62 Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that, but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment with a nonparole period of seven years.
DPP v Ristevski [2019] VSC 253 (18 April 2019)
An appeal could deal with looking to set a precedent that failure to disclose the cause and manner of death results in the maximum sentencing period.
realistically though, an amendment to the legislation is required:
eg a new Section 9F " maximum custodial sentence must be imposed for causing death in circumstances of failure to disclose the cause and manner of death"
SENTENCING ACT 1991
The downgrade to manslaughter was agreed, so nothing can be done to increase back to murder.
As to the sentencing:
Judge stated: “Without knowing the level and duration of the violence perpetrated by you which caused your wife’s death, I simply cannot say whether your offending was mid or upper range. I do not regard your silence as to how you killed your wife as providing a sufficiently firm basis for drawing the inference that yours must have been an upper range example of the offence of manslaughter.”
My research indicates that “In (VIC) determining whether a sentencing error has been made, the Court of Appeal considers such matters as:
1. the maximum sentence available to the original sentencing judge
2. how the original sentencing judge exercised the sentencing discretion
3. other sentences in similar cases
4. the seriousness of the offence
5. the personal circumstances of the offender.
Appeals Against Sentence | The Sentencing Advisory Council
the VIC manslaughter statistics I found were old “Between 2007-08 and 2011-12………….There were 3 successful appeals made by the Crown, each resulting in an increase in sentence length. The longest total effective imprisonment term to increase was a sentence of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years, which increased to 9 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years on appeal.”
And the stats for the 86 manslaughter sentences during that period were all dismally low:
Total effective imprisonment length Number of people
3 to less than 4 years 2
4 to less than 5 years 5
5 to less than 6 years 7
6 to less than 7 years 14
7 to less than 8 years 13
8 to less than 9 years 9
9 to less than 10 years 11
10 to less than 11 years 14
11 to less than 12 years 7
12 to less than 13 years 2
13 to less than 14 years 1
14 to less than 15 years 1
Stats for the offence of manslaughter in the Supreme Court of Victoria from 2011–12 to 2015–16 are set out below:
Figure 3: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment for manslaughter by length of imprisonment term, 2011–12 to 2015–16
Imprisonment length Number of people
1 to less than 2 years 1
2 to less than 3 years 0
3 to less than 4 years 1
4 to less than 5 years 4
5 to less than 6 years 8
6 to less than 7 years 5
7 to less than 8 years 12
8 to less than 9 years 17
9 to less than 10 years 7
10 to less than 11 years 7
11 to less than 12 years 6
12 to less than 13 years 2
People sentenced 70
Sentencing Trends for Manslaughter in the Higher Courts of Victoria 2011–12 to 2015–16 | The Sentencing Advisory Council
Boris’s sentence:
58 Borce Ristevski , please stand.
59 For the offence of manslaughter, I sentence you to nine years’ imprisonment.
60 I declare a nonparole period of six years.
61 I declare that you have already served 491 days by way of presentence detention.
62 Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that, but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment with a nonparole period of seven years.
DPP v Ristevski [2019] VSC 253 (18 April 2019)
An appeal could deal with looking to set a precedent that failure to disclose the cause and manner of death results in the maximum sentencing period.
realistically though, an amendment to the legislation is required:
eg a new Section 9F " maximum custodial sentence must be imposed for causing death in circumstances of failure to disclose the cause and manner of death"
SENTENCING ACT 1991
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 33,200
- Reaction score
- 217,549
There is a mechanism in the Vic Court of Appeal that allows for the inadequacy of a sentence, if the sentence has followed current sentencing practises (as Borce's sentence did).
There is a whole bunch of info about this in the Sentencing Guidance in Victoria document. I won't go into it all, but this is a snippet of what it says .....
BBM
Court of Appeal is well placed to comment on the adequacy of current sentencing practices, to determine the extent to which courts should be constrained by current sentencing practices, and to provide guidance as to the type of sentence appropriate in the circumstances.
The Court of Appeal has also indicated that an increase in current sentencing practices may follow if there is a change in views about the appropriate sentence length for particular behaviour.
This practice of identifying a possible issue as to the adequacy of current sentencing practices has emerged over time. This involves awaiting an appropriate case to be the subject of an appeal and the Court of Appeal considering whether to make a declaration of the inadequacy of current sentencing practices.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.g...ts/Sentencing Guidance in Victoria Report.pdf
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 33,200
- Reaction score
- 217,549
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2018
- Messages
- 1,398
- Reaction score
- 8,558
I think this is the crux of problem:
Judge stated: “Without knowing the level and duration of the violence perpetrated by you which caused your wife’s death, I simply cannot say whether your offending was mid or upper range. I do not regard your silence as to how you killed your wife as providing a sufficiently firm basis for drawing the inference that yours must have been an upper range example of the offence of manslaughter.”
That is, he is giving Borce benefit of the doubt. Not knowing = mid range offence.
Most people (those outraged) believe it should be the other way round. He should not get any benefit of doubt because he was the one who muddied the water. Not knowing due to cover up = upper range offence.
The sentence should definitely be appealed IMO.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 33,200
- Reaction score
- 217,549
Yes ... ridiculous.
"You wont tell us what you did, and we cant tell how bad it was, so we'll give you the lighter (mid range offence) sentence".
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 14,657
- Reaction score
- 57,121
Yes ... ridiculous.
"You wont tell us what you did, and we cant tell how bad it was, so we'll give you the lighter (mid range offence) sentence".
They’d better hurry up with the lodgement of the appeal.
Wasn’t it 28 days?
I think the post-offence actions should be treated as an aggravating factor, moving the seriousness of the manslaughter into the upper range. Also the fact that it was his wife who was killed, and necessarily more vulnerable than a random person with whom he didn't share a house and didn't have a relationship of trust.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 33,200
- Reaction score
- 217,549
Yes, 28 days. Should be lodged by 15th May if the DPP is going to do it. Halfway through the 28 days at the moment.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 14,657
- Reaction score
- 57,121
Similar threads
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 107
- Guests online
- 2,651
- Total visitors
- 2,758