Cindy Crossthwaite death: Jury’s legal questions in trial of alleged killer ex Emil Petrov
Jurors in the murder trial of a man accused of the “well-planned execution” of his ex-wife have returned to court to ask a series of questions.
Jurors in the trial of a Melbourne father accused of murdering his estranged wife have returned to court to ask a series of legal questions.
Emil “Bill” Petrov, 60, is facing trial in Victoria’s Supreme Court accused of killing, or being party to a plot to kill, Cindy Crossthwaite, 41, in June 2007.
Prosecutors allege Mr Petrov murdered his wife in a “well-planned execution” after breaking into her Melton South home in the morning of June 20.
But they’ve said if the jury cannot find beyond reasonable doubt he was directly responsible, they can find he entered into an arrangement or understanding with an unknown person to murder her.
He has pleaded not guilty, with his lawyers arguing there is no forensic evidence and questioning how the jury could exclude a random burglary gone wrong or Mr Petrov’s own father being responsible.
On Tuesday morning, the jury of 12 Victorians returned to court seeking to clarify what constitutes being a party to murder.
Asked “did he have to assist with the murder?”, Justice Christopher Beale told the jury that Mr Petrov needed to have made a contribution to the murder, such as “provision of the murder weapon” in order to be found guilty of perpetrating or assisting with the offence.
“The accused must have made a contribution to carrying out the agreement … simply knowing in advance about the murder would not make him party to it,” Justice Beale said.
The jury also asked, “What if he knew about the murder but did not assist?”, to which Justice Beale clarified that “mere knowledge does not make participation”.
“He must contribute to the enterprise in some way before he could be said to participate,” the judge said.
Ms Crossthwaite was found bashed, strangled and shot in the head after failing to pick up her two eldest children from school.
The couple’s 16-year relationship ended in mid-2005.
Prosecutors allege Mr Petrov was motivated by a “deep-seated and enduring hatred” of his wife amid a messy separation and the belief she engineered false sexual misconduct claims against his father.
But delivering his closing remarks to the jury last month, defence barrister Ashley Halphen suggested Mr Petrov’s late father Ljubisa, then 68, could have orchestrated the murder without his son’s knowledge.
Mr Halphen told the jury Ljubisa blamed her for the allegations, suggesting they might think that would lead to palpable hatred while the possibility of charges was hanging over his head.
Describing that theory as “fanciful”, Crown prosecutor Mark Gibson KC told the jury “we know that Bill Petrov stood to gain a lot by killing Cindy Crossthwaite”.
“He stood to achieve vengeance for what he believed she had done to him and he stood to gain the opportunity to avoid assets being stripped from him,’ he alleged.
Giving evidence, Brian O’Shea, who was initially charged alongside Mr Petrov, told the court that he sourced a firearm for Mr Petrov in 2005.
A friend and drinking buddy, Mr O’Shea also claimed Mr Petrov had shown him a wig, gloves and dark clothing in the boot of his car about six to eight weeks before her death.
“I’m going to kill Cindy, will you help me? I’m going to kill the c--t,” it was alleged he said.
Mr Halphen attacked the credibility of Mr O’Shea, whose charges were dropped in exchange for giving evidence for the prosecution.
“After almost 17 years, after years of radio silence … he gave a version of various events that fitted into the prosecution case like a glove,” he said.
The trial continues.