Found Deceased Australia - Karen Ristevski, 47, Melbourne, Vic, 29 June 2016 - #8

[Gigi30]

Just curious where you have heard him speak. He hasn't said much at all to the media.

He spoke outside the AH police station( first appeal). He had no accent whatsoever. I'm inclined to think he came out to Aust as a child.

 

[SouthAussie]

He blinks a lot though....imo

And seems quite preoccupied with the thought that others may think that he had financial difficulties.

 

[emirates1957]

From experience, you don't always get back what you went in with or contributed along the way. :maddening:

Oh yes indeed sleep, I'm hearing you.

 

[Specialk72]

Everone agrees the murder was unplanned (you dont plan to leave the body between 2 logs), that means money wasn't an issue or motive.
With good planning body should never be found and you wouldn't dump it near your brothers property or racehourse

Quite possibly she told him about leaving marriage and he couldn't take it, got mad and strangled or suffocated her, hence no visible injuries.

Im pretty sure in divorce process each party gets 50%, in this case one party is gone, so i guess spouse thats alive getes everything.
Don't think will can override that
Hypothetically, if now BR dies as well, everything would go to children, SR and AR are the only children i assume.








Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

In my experience....In the divorce process it is not mandated that everything is split 50/50. It is a 4 step process. 1. What each party brought to the table before getting together. 2. What each party contributed to the marriage during the marriage + length of marriage. 3. Children. 4. Future needs (of children/non working mother usually). Its work like a scale add some, take some and see what you end up with. Rarely is it 50/50.

 

[sosocurious]

He spoke outside the AH police station( first appeal). He had no accent whatsoever. I'm inclined to think he came out to Aust as a child.

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...ce-of-karen-ristevski-stops-talking-to-police
1:09 - Borce speaking.

 

[sosocurious]

In my experience....In the divorce process it is not mandated that everything is split 50/50. It is a 4 step process. 1. What each party brought to the table before getting together. 2. What each party contributed to the marriage during the marriage + length of marriage. 3. Children. 4. Future needs (of children/non working mother usually). Its work like a scale add some, take some and see what you end up with. Rarely is it 50/50.

I agree when I first posted I said starting at 50/50.

 

[emirates1957]

Nope, just judging by the way i heard him speak English. I know a lot of maco people so i know sort of accent they have based on length of time in Oz. He would be in his early teens(max) when he arrived.

Maco people ?? Personally I find that offensive. I don't believe any fellow Websleuth member would lower themselves to making a comment like yours. Having the pleasure of working and meeting wonderful folk of numerous countries, religion, cultural differences. Thank you SA as a reminder to cultural tradition.




Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Maco people ?? Personally I find that offensive. I don't believe any fellow Websleuth member would lower themselves to making a comment like yours. Having the pleasure of working and meeting wonderful folk of numerous countries, religion, cultural differences. Thank you SA as a reminder to cultural tradition.

 

[Didi1201]

BR sounds good in the that short video, there must be longer video i watched last week .


Sent from my HTC_M10h using Tapatalk

 

[Poirot's niece]

I'm also offering food for thought. My back was far from up and I didn't assume you were trying to do that. "Do you know Borce?" I hazard a guess you don't so, for now perahps you might be so generous as to entertain the very plausible idea that not all 2nd generation Aussies from a Macedonian background are carrying on every custom and tradition of their birthland. He may well do, he may not, it might be part of his deeply held value system, or it might be anathema to him.
I don't see why pointing out that possibility is so irksome to you.
This is a FORUM.

 

[LexR]

BR sounds good in the that short video, there must be longer video i watched last week .


Sent from my HTC_M10h using Tapatalk

Can you recall where you may of watched this?

 

[Didi1201]

In my experience....In the divorce process it is not mandated that everything is split 50/50. It is a 4 step process. 1. What each party brought to the table before getting together. 2. What each party contributed to the marriage during the marriage + length of marriage. 3. Children. 4. Future needs (of children/non working mother usually). Its work like a scale add some, take some and see what you end up with. Rarely is it 50/50.

Specialtalk72

Which country you in?
In western countries i dont think they care who brought what to the table before getting together, otherwise millionaires would not have to worry about marrying poor girl with nothing to contribute, only if you sign prenup that protects your assets acquired before you got into marriage contract.


The*Family Law Act 1975*sets out the general principles the court considers when deciding financial disputes after the breakdown of a marriage

The general principles are the same, regardless of whether the parties were in a marriage or a de facto relationship, and are based on:

working out what you've got and what you owe, that is your assets and debts and what they are worth

looking at the direct financial contributions by each party to the marriage or de facto relationship such as wage and salary earnings

looking at indirect financial contributions by each party such as gifts and inheritances from families

looking at the non-financial contributions to the marriage or de facto relationship such as caring for children and homemaking, and

future requirements – a court will take into account things like age, health, financial resources, care of children and ability to earn.




Sent from my HTC_M10h using Tapatalk

 

[sleepinoz]

Specialtalk72

Which country you in?
In western countries i dont think they care who brought what to the table before getting together, otherwise millionaires would not have to worry about marrying poor girl with nothing to contribute, only if you sign prenup that protects your assets acquired before you got into marriage contract.


The*Family Law Act 1975*sets out the general principles the court considers when deciding financial disputes after the breakdown of a marriage

The general principles are the same, regardless of whether the parties were in a marriage or a de facto relationship, and are based on:

working out what you've got and what you owe, that is your assets and debts and what they are worth

looking at the direct financial contributions by each party to the marriage or de facto relationship such as wage and salary earnings

looking at indirect financial contributions by each party such as gifts and inheritances from families

looking at the non-financial contributions to the marriage or de facto relationship such as caring for children and homemaking, and

future requirements – a court will take into account things like age, health, financial resources, care of children and ability to earn.




Sent from my HTC_M10h using Tapatalk

Ok - so those of us that have been through it have no idea. Ok, I believe you even though I've done it twice - in Australia

Sent from my SM-T355Y using Tapatalk

 

[Trooper]

I think the property division thing has a lot of application in this situation.. I understand why the 50/50 business has gained traction with a lot of posters, but the unusual thing, in this marriage, was that that house, in Avondale, was put solely into Karen's name, presumably by Borce for a good reason.

No one does that on a whim.

Some reasons why he would do that. He owed Karen money , as a separate entity other than her being his wife. In lieu, he signed over the house to her sole ownership instead of cash, or similar value artifacts.. .

He signed it over to her, on the strength of her demand that he do so to prevent him borrowing on the equity of the property, perhaps he ventured into that and , as usual, failed badly. His lawyer probably, in that case would suggest it.

He signed it over because he didn't want to be found owning property in the event that creditors came looking for him to appropriate anything with his name in ownership on as payment for moneys owing, in other words, debt. And to maintain that façade of owning nothing that could be appropriated by a cranky lender, he kept the sole owner thingy going.

Should there have been a divorce, Borce would only have been entitled to any money he spent in maintaining the place.. did he paint it? have landscaping done? repaired a garage? he could get that money , or a proportion of it refunded.

 

[Amee]

Oh yes indeed sleep, I'm hearing you.

yep me too :furious:

 

[Trooper]

And seems quite preoccupied with the thought that others may think that he had financial difficulties.

'having money difficulties', there is nothing more likely to turn off people lending you more money, if you suddenly have the appearance of 'having financial difficulties'..

Borce's entire world depends on no one getting the slightest hint of that eventuality.

 

[Amee]

OT :

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/02/28/15/02/qld-mum-missing-after-school-drop-off

Young mother from Calliope near Gladstone missing since yesterday morning.

[h=1]Update: missing woman, Calliope[/h] QPS Media on Feb 28, 2017 @ 7:22pm
Police have located the body believed to be that of a woman reported missing from Calliope.
There are no suspicious circumstances.
A report will be prepared for the Coroner.
For help, members of the public are encouraged to contact Lifeline on 13 1114 or visit www.lifeline.com.au or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 46 36 or at www.beyondblue.com.au

http://mypolice.qld.gov.au/blog/2017/02/28/update-missing-woman-calliope/

 

[SouthAussie]

[h=1]Update: missing woman, Calliope[/h] QPS Media on Feb 28, 2017 @ 7:22pm
Police have located the body believed to be that of a woman reported missing from Calliope.
There are no suspicious circumstances.
A report will be prepared for the Coroner.
For help, members of the public are encouraged to contact Lifeline on 13 1114 or visit www.lifeline.com.au or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 46 36 or at www.beyondblue.com.au

http://mypolice.qld.gov.au/blog/2017/02/28/update-missing-woman-calliope/

Oh, that is very sad. And she had a little tyke, too. :cry:

 

[Oona]

Can anyone clarify if Karen's body was placed between the fork of a tree, or between two logs or "under a log" as some news sources have reported?
It is hard to imagine that tree trunks of that size could be moved by one person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SouthAussie]

Can anyone clarify if Karen's body was placed between the fork of a tree, or between two logs or "under a log" as some news sources have reported?
It is hard to imagine that tree trunks of that size could be moved by one person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it is possible that the tree trunks had fallen and were laying like that. As was stated further back in the threads, a forked tree. As they look like the exact same kind of wood, to me.

But was it dumb luck that the murderer had just stumbled on that forked tree - if that is what it is? A great hiding spot (for them). Or did they already know it was there because they had wandered through that area before? Were perhaps familiar with the spot, as many experts say a murderer will do ... take their victim to a place they have been familiar with.

That is what I have wondered. Because it seems very convenient, to find a place like that when you are presumably in a hurry and an anxious state of mind.

 

[JLZ]

But was it dumb luck that the murderer had just stumbled on that forked tree - if that is what it is? A great hiding spot (for them). Or did they already know it was there because they had wandered through that area before? Were perhaps familiar with the spot, as many experts say a murderer will do ... take their victim to a place they have been familiar with.

That is what I have wondered. Because it seems very convenient, to find a place like that when you are presumably in a hurry and an anxious state of mind.

(snipped)

Especially if, as has been speculated, it was done in the dark.