Cindy Crossthwaite knew someone was out to get her and at one point believed she had a stalker but the truth was actually more horrifying than she could have imagined with deadly consequences
Cindy Crossthwaite and Emil ‘Bill’ Petrov had been married for almost 10 years when they separated in 2005. But two years later, they were still locked in a custody battle over their two children, a daughter aged nine and a seven-year-old son, and hadn’t settled the division of their assets.
Cindy had moved on and started dating someone else. By 2007, she had a 13-month-old son, although the relationship had ended. Aged 41, she was now focused on raising her three children at her home in Melbourne, Australia, but the divorce was weighing heavily on her.
At a family court hearing in May 2007, Petrov insisted that several properties shouldn’t be included in the divorce agreement because they were owned by his parents. The case was adjourned until July so Petrov could instruct a lawyer.
READ MORE: Shop assistant, 24, went on second Tinder date and was chopped into 14 pieces
Friends could see that Cindy was living in a state of heightened anxiety. She had made unproven allegations of sexual misconduct against Petrov’s father, which were being dealt with by the police. She also believed someone was trying to make her think she was losing her mind.
She told loved ones she thought someone was watching her. She would answer the phone, but no one would speak. Garden furniture would inexplicably move around and items would go missing. Did she have a stalker?
On 20 June 2007, Cindy didn’t turn up at school to pick up her two older children and no one could reach her. A friend tried all day to get hold of her. Someone went to collect the children while Cindy’s dad, Phillip, went to her home to check on her.
When Phillip walked in at around 4pm, he saw blood splatter on the blinds and window of the living room. Then he found the body of his daughter – on the floor, half covered under a pink blanket. She had been choked, had suffered injuries to her upper body and been shot in the head at close range.
Due to Cindy’s devastating injuries, Phillip couldn’t formally identify his daughter, but he knew it was her. Remnants of a handgun grip were at the scene.
After calling the emergency services, Phillip frantically searched for Cindy’s young son. Had someone hurt him, too? Phillip found him unharmed on a bed a few metres away from Cindy’s body.
The killing was brutal and investigators felt it was personal, not the result of a random robbery. The police interviewed Petrov, as he and Cindy were in the midst of a contentious divorce, but he claimed to have an alibi and was released without charge.
There was evidence that Petrov had threatened Cindy over the phone before she died. He allegedly said, “I’ll shut you up for good,” which was overheard by their daughter. But there wasn’t enough evidence to link him to the killing.
Phillip took in Cindy’s children and raised them himself – her mum had died from cancer four years earlier. He believed right from the start that Petrov was to blame for Cindy’s death. The charges against Petrov’s father, who has since died, were dropped.
Reward for information
Despite the police exploring all lines of enquiry, the case ran cold. In 2017 – the ten-year anniversary – they offered a AUD$1million reward for information about Cindy’s death. A few tip-offs were received, one stating that two people were involved.
Two years later, Petrov and one of his friends, Brian O’Shea, were arrested and charged with murder. But Petrov didn’t stay behind bars for long as his mother paid the AUD$900,000 bond to secure his bail.
At first, O’Shea was the accused and his trial started in 2023, but it was discontinued when he made a deal and turned star witness. He claimed that Petrov had paid him $3,000 for a handgun and told him he was going to kill his wife several weeks before the murder.
O’Shea claimed Petrov had opened the boot of his car and he’d seen a black wig, a dark blue jacket, a beanie and a pair of black gloves. “I’m going to kill that c*** Cindy,” Petrov is alleged to have said. “I’m going to take a week off work and I’m going to kill her. Will you help me?”
O’Shea said he’d tried to calm his friend down. He agreed to testify against Petrov in exchange for all charges against him being dropped.
17-year wait for justice
At Petrov’s trial in November 2024, 17 years after Cindy’s brutal death, Petrov faced a jury. The prosecution said he knew he faced losing out financially in the divorce when court proceedings resumed in July 2007, so he’d had to act. They said it was a “well-planned execution” after he broke into her home. They also said Petrov had a “deep-seated and enduring hatred” of his wife due to the separation and that he believed Cindy had made up false allegations about his dad.
A blood pattern expert testified that Cindy had been shot in the head at close range or when her head was virtually on the floor. The pool of blood on the carpet, covered by a door mat, suggested her body had been repositioned.
O’Shea testified about what he’d seen and heard before the killing and insisted he’d told Petrov he needed to see a doctor because he was taking things too far. “He grabbed me in a headlock and said he was just mucking around,” O’Shea told the court.
The defence said O’Shea’s testimony was unreliable as he’d had his charges dropped in exchange for helping the prosecution. They said there was no forensic evidence and suggested the killing could have been a robbery gone wrong and even told the jury Petrov’s late father had means and motive and could have orchestrated the murder without his son’s knowledge.
The prosecution said it was Petrov who’d gain from Cindy’s death. He wanted “vengeance for what he believed she had done to him, and he stood to gain the opportunity to avoid assets being stripped from him,” they told the court.
The jury found Petrov, now 61, guilty. He was seen shaking his head as he was finally taken into custody.
At the sentencing, Cindy’s children and loved ones finally had the chance to share their pain. Cindy’s dad said he’d always known it was Petrov. “I refused to give Cindy away at her wedding as I had an instant dislike of Petrov,” he told the court.
The judge said he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Petrov was the perpetrator, but believed he was heavily involved. “At the very least, you were a party to the premeditated execution of your estranged wife,” he said.
Three young children had been left without a mother. Petrov was sentenced to 26 years, with no parole for 20.