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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
JLZ said:
BBM--The link with Sarah turning 21 has a jokey sound to me, maybe something that might have been said about the distant future. Otherwise, why would a parent link what should be a triumphal occasion for her daughter with the breakdown of her parents' marriage? That's . . . cruel. The timing was something for Karen to decide given circumstances we don't entirely know, but surely there was no practical reason to wait for Sarah's 21st birthday.
Click to expand...
I know someone very well, who had decided looong years ago, to file for divorce immediately and urgently, when the youngest child would be 18 yo. When the 3 children became older, the problems decreased because of that (growing older) - and today the pair is married for 50 years, verbal a little bit fighting as always, but otherwise the two are good friends most of the time.
 
FromGermany said:
I know someone very well, who had decided looong years ago, to file for divorce immediately and urgently, when the youngest child would be 18 yo. When the 3 children became older, the problems decreased because of that (growing older) - and today the pair is married for 50 years, verbal a little bit fighting as always, but otherwise the two are good friends most of the time.
Click to expand...
I too personally know several couples who've been through the same thing and their marriage is stronger today than it was when they first married. The wives also don't have a problem leaving their husbands on the couch when she retires to the bedroom. It has absolutely nothing to do with lack of affection or arguments, or the need to slip out unnoticed to get up to no-good--it's simple, they leave them up to watch tv and their husbands end up falling asleep, no biggie at all! I doubt we will ever know the real reason why BR slept on the couch. MOO
 
JLZ said:
BBM--The link with Sarah turning 21 has a jokey sound to me, maybe something that might have been said about the distant future. Otherwise, why would a parent link what should be a triumphal occasion for her daughter with the breakdown of her parents' marriage? That's . . . cruel. The timing was something for Karen to decide given circumstances we don't entirely know, but surely there was no practical reason to wait for Sarah's 21st birthday.
Click to expand...
It was said by BR's son that KR had said she was leaving the marriage once their daughter turned 21; I have heard this type of thing a few times before over the years from unhappy halves of couples.. the person might be miserable and wanting to leave, but yet tell themselves they feel obligated to remain in the marriage 'for the children's sake', and so they will stay until x time in the future when they might presumably feel less obligated due to age/maturity of said children. Sometimes the other 'half' will be made aware of this future 'plan', and sometimes not. It is interesting that Sarah turned 21 only about a month before the day of 'the argument'.

For this couple to become separated at this time would have created all kinds of financial havoc in what seemed to be an already compromised financial situation. A failing business to split up(?), a heavily mortgaged home to split up, debts to split, a second dwelling to outfit and pay for each month, I'm not sure if the couple were paying for their daughter's university education, etc., and then an inheritance which KR had received sometime prior, which may not have been subject to family law splitting rules, which may have put BR at an even greater disadvantage than KR? It's not hard to imagine how an argument that may have turned into talk of separation might get blood boiling. imo.
 
deugirtni said:
It was said by BR's son that KR had said she was leaving the marriage once their daughter turned 21; I have heard this type of thing a few times before over the years from unhappy halves of couples.. the person might be miserable and wanting to leave, but yet tell themselves they feel obligated to remain in the marriage 'for the children's sake', and so they will stay until x time in the future when they might presumably feel less obligated due to age/maturity of said children. Sometimes the other 'half' will be made aware of this future 'plan', and sometimes not. It is interesting that Sarah turned 21 only about a month before the day of 'the argument'.

For this couple to become separated at this time would have created all kinds of financial havoc in what seemed to be an already compromised financial situation. A failing business to split up(?), a heavily mortgaged home to split up, debts to split, a second dwelling to outfit and pay for each month, I'm not sure if the couple were paying for their daughter's university education, etc., and then an inheritance which KR had received sometime prior, which may not have been subject to family law splitting rules, which may have put BR at an even greater disadvantage than KR? It's not hard to imagine how an argument that may have turned into talk of separation might get blood boiling. imo.
Click to expand...
Yes, a fairly recent (not historical) inheritance is usually not part of the settlement.
 
Maybe Karen found out, by mail, that Sarah was a shareholder in the very company set up to siphon off any credit and/or cash from BellaB….

Karen would have known instinctively that Sarah must have given written permission to be a shareholder...… must have known that it had been kept secret, perhaps, by both Sarah and Borce.

That would produce ballistic-type outrage, I expect. And maybe people knew the whole thing had ended, there and then....no going back.
 
Regarding Sarah saying that the business was doing okay - I have found that employees generally don't have a clue how well or unwell a business is doing. They tend to measure it only by what they see and then doing perhaps rough calculations in their heads - perhaps knowing some of the daily gross sales amounts, seeing a busy store, hearing good reviews, perhaps knowing the markups on some of the items, but not really having an understanding of the whole other side, of paying all of the bills every month/year, knowing the prices paid for each item sold, insurance, stock shortages (thefts are common), etc. I actually heard an employee say to an owner one time, after breaking a piece of equipment, that it was no big deal because it could just be 'written off', as if there was some magical place where things get funded by just claiming an expense, without it coming from the owners' pockets. There seems to be no reason to assume that Sarah had a clue about the deep financials of the business. The couple likely protected Sarah from knowing too much about either their finances or their marital relationship. imo.
 
It is important to BR how he is perceived.
The following article, shows how a 'criminal profiler's opinion' was used, to nab a suspect, in a recent case.
I used this article in another case here, wondering what could be achieved.


Matthew Leveson: 'You wanna know how he died?'
Grace Tobin
2 hrs ago
........
The criminal profiler formed the opinion Atkins was highly motivated by self-preservation and, due to his limited emotional capacity, tended to compartmentalise his life. From Dr Yule’s perspective, he appeared to be overly concerned with how others perceived him in all areas of his life.

It was this character assessment that helped Jubelin get inside Atkins’ head.

What followed was a strategic decision to wire up Atkins’ former lover, Andrew Danvers, and send him in to confront their suspect.
 
Last edited:
they'll get you said:
IMO Borce knew the marriage was over and he was sneakily feathering his own nest.
He’s not the first and he won’t be the last.
I have a friend who openly says she doesn’t trust her business partner who is her husband.
She’s the face and workhorse of the business and is overwhelmed by the by the books. She knows he’s pilfering the cash but she’s too tired to care any more.

THIS SITE IS UNWORKABLE!
Click to expand...
Not so much the site for me but the brilliantly crappy NBN that forever drops out :mad:
 
JLZ said:
BBM--The link with Sarah turning 21 has a jokey sound to me, maybe something that might have been said about the distant future. Otherwise, why would a parent link what should be a triumphal occasion for her daughter with the breakdown of her parents' marriage? That's . . . cruel. The timing was something for Karen to decide given circumstances we don't entirely know, but surely there was no practical reason to wait for Sarah's 21st birthday.
Click to expand...

I think it's because 21 is seen as now they are an adult, so their responsibility ends. I know of a few who have split at that point, one left when their youngest was 18 and one who desperately wants out but a mix of obligation and manipulation makes them feel trapped.
 
aust amateur slueth said:
I think it's because 21 is seen as now they are an adult, so their responsibility ends. I know of a few who have split at that point, one left when their youngest was 18 and one who desperately wants out but a mix of obligation and manipulation makes them feel trapped.
Click to expand...
Did they announce the split beforehand though, that they were leaving when Child turns 18? Seems a lot of people make the announcement and then don't leave; others leave after the child's grown but didn't mention the timetable. Anyway 18 is somewhat different from 21 in my opinion; 18 has legal significance, but 21 is still the big occasion for celebrations.

If Karen was leaving, she was leaving a man who was about to kill her. Whatever her reasons, she was making the right decision. If only she'd carried it through in time and thwarted him.
 
I think we will likely hear whether Karen planned to leave Borce when Sarah was 21 once this case goes to trial - Karen apparently told at least one person - unless that one person was Borce or Sarah.

One time he claimed he had simply "overheard" Mrs Ristevski say she planned to leave Mr Ristevski after her daughter's 21st birthday.
Karen Ristevski's daughter Sarah has been put in an unthinkable position
 
tmar said:
It is important to BR how he is perceived.
The following article, shows how a 'criminal profiler's opinion' was used, to nab a suspect, in a recent case.
I used this article in another case here, wondering what could be achieved.


Matthew Leveson: 'You wanna know how he died?'
Grace Tobin
2 hrs ago
........
The criminal profiler formed the opinion Atkins was highly motivated by self-preservation and, due to his limited emotional capacity, tended to compartmentalise his life. From Dr Yule’s perspective, he appeared to be overly concerned with how others perceived him in all areas of his life.

It was this character assessment that helped Jubelin get inside Atkins’ head.

What followed was a strategic decision to wire up Atkins’ former lover, Andrew Danvers, and send him in to confront their suspect.
Click to expand...


Just finished this book, was a good read..........
 
SouthAussie said:
It has been reported that Borce has a volatile personality. Something we have viewed ourselves, when Borce has been asked questions about his finances by MSM.

Detective Senior Constable Care also said in his statement that security guards at Watergardens told him that Mr Ristevski was difficult to deal with and described him as an angry man.
Borce Ristevski's alibi for day wife disappeared 'flimsy', aunt says


Whereas, it has been reported that Karen was kind and gentle.

.... and can’t understand why anyone would harm such a “kind, gentle soul”
She was that sort of person, that nice, kind, loving ....
Karen Ristevski: ‘She wouldn’t run away’


Does not mean that Karen would not have cause for anger, but it seems that she preferred to go for a walk or drive and calm down ... as reported by both Sarah and Borce.
Click to expand...


And what about the look on his face when he was approached by the reporter on the way to see his lawyer and when the reporter asked him if he had killed his wife? To me he has a look of underlying menace.

“Dad was a calming influence. Mum would get annoyed quickly. Dad was always the calm one, calming her down.”

It was this comment from Sarah that made me think about how things could have played out and what she may have witnessed previously. How perhaps he had been provoked that day (deservedly) until he snapped. All conjecture on my part, but I find it compelling to imagine such a scenario.

Not blaming Karen in any way. She had plenty to be furious about and didn’t realise the dangerous position she was in, if she did tell him she was leaving him.


https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp....g/news-story/59b5d470b79a3bf7eabce2b4b129aa42
 
Last edited:
deugirtni said:
Regarding Sarah saying that the business was doing okay - I have found that employees generally don't have a clue how well or unwell a business is doing. They tend to measure it only by what they see and then doing perhaps rough calculations in their heads - perhaps knowing some of the daily gross sales amounts, seeing a busy store, hearing good reviews, perhaps knowing the markups on some of the items, but not really having an understanding of the whole other side, of paying all of the bills every month/year, knowing the prices paid for each item sold, insurance, stock shortages (thefts are common), etc. I actually heard an employee say to an owner one time, after breaking a piece of equipment, that it was no big deal because it could just be 'written off', as if there was some magical place where things get funded by just claiming an expense, without it coming from the owners' pockets. There seems to be no reason to assume that Sarah had a clue about the deep financials of the business. The couple likely protected Sarah from knowing too much about either their finances or their marital relationship. imo.
Click to expand...

BBM

Sarah must have known about the money that was owed to her by Warrant Brands.
Maybe she didn't.
 
Last edited:
JLZ said:
Did they announce the split beforehand though, that they were leaving when Child turns 18? Seems a lot of people make the announcement and then don't leave; others leave after the child's grown but didn't mention the timetable. Anyway 18 is somewhat different from 21 in my opinion; 18 has legal significance, but 21 is still the big occasion for celebrations.

If Karen was leaving, she was leaving a man who was about to kill her. Whatever her reasons, she was making the right decision. If only she'd carried it through in time and thwarted him.
Click to expand...
Yes, well in advance, the earliest was when their child was about 5, the latest the youngest was around 8-10. Interestingly all had at least one or two children with their partner before marriage.
 
Trooper said:
Maybe Karen found out, by mail, that Sarah was a shareholder in the very company set up to siphon off any credit and/or cash from BellaB….

Karen would have known instinctively that Sarah must have given written permission to be a shareholder...… must have known that it had been kept secret, perhaps, by both Sarah and Borce.

That would produce ballistic-type outrage, I expect. And maybe people knew the whole thing had ended, there and then....no going back.
Click to expand...

Yes, I feel that Karen's best attempts to protect Sarah may have been thwarted by Borce signing Sarah up as a much-needed business shareholder.

He needed one of those to legitimise his new business. Without at least one shareholder (member) besides himself, he would have required a bank guarantee (as per the ASIC link I previously posted) - something I think would have been hard for him to achieve.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 64 more.
Total: 3,217 (members: 65, guests: 3,152)

Online statistics

Members online
65
Guests online
3,152
Total visitors
3,217
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,284
Messages
17,966,652
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top