Slain wife ‘repositioned’ after shooting: court

After mother-of-three Cindy Crossthwaite was killed, her body was “repositioned” and partially covered by a pink blanket, a jury has been told.

Emil ‘Bill’ Petrov, 60, is facing trial in the Victorian Supreme Court after pleading not guilty to his wife’s June 20, 2007 murder.

Prosecutors allege Mr Petrov killed Ms Crossthwaite but have put forward an alternative theory that he arranged for an unknown person to carry out the killing.

The 41-year-old was discovered by her father having been shot in the head and with numerous upper body injures after she failed to pick her children up from school, the court has been told.

“This case is about who did it, who was responsible for such a horrific beating and killing of a middle-aged mother … a woman without enemies, except, the Crown says, one,” Crown prosecutor Mark Gibson KC said.

“The brutal nature, we say, of that attack … is suggestive of a most personal crime, not the sort of crime a random burglar would commit.”

On Thursday, jurors spent the morning on a bus as they travelled to his Footscray home and visited the Melton South house where Ms Crossthwaite was killed.

After a lunch break, three forensic experts gave evidence about the conclusions they reached after examining her Andrew St home.

Bloodstain pattern analysis expert Maxwell Jones told the jury it was his opinion Ms Crossthwaite was shot in the head at “close range or in contact” when her head was virtually on the floor.

He said a pool of blood on the carpet, covered by a door mat, suggested Ms Crossthwaite’s body was “repositioned” on top of the mat.

Mr Jones said bloody footprints through the home indicated a person walked to a number of doorways but did not enter the rooms.

Firearms examiner Sergeant Andrew Nisbet told the court a piece of wooden handgun grip, located on Ms Crossthwaite’s body, was matched to a Colt revolver.

He suggested the firearm would have made a “loud boom” when fired.

The jury was told no DNA linked to Mr Petrov was located at the home, nor were unknown samples.

In his opening address, Mr Gibson said it’s alleged Mr Petrov held a “deep-seated and enduring hatred” for Ms Crossthwaite for two reasons after the pair separated in mid-2005 following nine years of marriage.

He said it was alleged Mr Petrov and his parents stood to lose a “substantial” amount of money to Ms Crossthwaite and that Mr Petrov allegedly believed his ex was responsible for false allegations of sexual misconduct levied against his father Ljubisa Petrov.

Three weeks after Ms Crossthwaite was found dead, Mr Gibson said, police concluded their investigation and notified Ljubisa Petrov they would not be laying charges.

On Wednesday, defence barrister Ashley Halphen said his client “absolutely denies” killing Ms Crossthwaite or orchestrating her murder.

He told the jury his client denied he knew where she was living or that he was in the area when she was killed.

“Does the claim that you heard yesterday — that Ms Crossthwaite had only one enemy — place you on the right track? Is it an accurate estimate or were there others in the frame that may have had a bee in their bonnet,” he said.

In his opening remarks Mr Halphen drew battlelines around the evidence of Brian O’Shea, a friend of Mr Petrov, saying his testimony would be “heavily disputed” and flagged his credibility would be questioned.

“He denies each and every incriminating conversation with Mr O’Shea,” the barrister said.

According to Mr Gibson, Mr O’Shea is expected to give evidence he allegedly sourced a handgun for Mr Petrov about eight months earlier.

The prosecutor said in about April or May 2007 Mr Petrov allegedly visited Mr O’Shea and showed him a black wig, dark-coloured clothing and a pair of black gloves in the boot of his car.

“What are you doing with this stuff?” Mr O’Shea allegedly asked.

The accused man allegedly responded; “I’m going to kill that c–t Cindy”.

“I’m going to take a week off work and I’m going to kill her. Will you help me?”

Mr Halphen said his client denies this ever took place.

“You’ll need to grapple with this question, that is, whether he is a witness of truth or are there things personal to him going on in his world that impact the submission he be treated as an honest and reliable witness,” he told the jury.

The trial, before Justice Christopher Beale, continues.