David Trivić owed the murdered man over 14,000 euros. Photo: Mojca Furlan – Russian
Who’s lying? The prosecutor is convinced that both deserve the maximum sentence
The defendants David Trivić and Andraž Skrinjar from Gorenje, who were sentenced to 24 years in prison for the cruel murder of their former colleague Milan S., also blamed each other in the higher court, and the prosecutor is convinced that only the maximum sentence of 30 years is suitable for them.
The insidious and brutal murder of a friend and former colleague Milana S. Both defendants from Stražišče pri Kranje regret. At the same time, none of them admits it, instead they keep blaming each other.
The fact is that they were David Trivic and Andraž Skrinjar on the night of June 7 at Milan S.’s home. They drove there in Skrinjar’s car (the latter is from Bled, and Trivić is from Cerkelj), they left their mobile phones at home and took a “vokitoki” instead, they were drinking together when Milan S. was heavily drunk, and one of them hit him on the back of the head with a mace so that he was thrown into the wall. When he collapsed and began to shake, he hit him on the head at least ten more times with a mace, cut him on the neck with an olfa knife, and finally tied a polyvinyl bag over his head and tightened it with a rope, as a result of which Milan S. finally died of suffocation.
She dumped the body on Jelovica
They then took the body to the Jelovica area and threw it down a steep, almost precipice bank on Jelovica, they got rid of their clothes, and even before that they took 400 euros from Milan S.’s wallet, suitcases with tools and the keys to his car and house. Their main motive was supposed to be self-interest, as Trivić owed Milan 14,582 euros, and both defendants knew that their former colleague was quite wealthy.
At the Kranj District Court, Trivić and Skrinjar were convicted of complicity murder, but their individual roles were not fully clarified, as Trivić and Skrinjar kept blaming each other.
Trivić’s advocate Brigita Žvan also claimed before the Senate of the Ljubljana Higher Court today that the complicity of Trivić was not proven and that he only participated in hiding the body, but not in the murder itself. After she saw the evidence presented, Trivić went to Milan S. only to agree on how he would repay his debt, and Skrinjar then allegedly attacked him. They didn’t have any weapons with them either. She emphasized that after the arrest, Trivić cooperated with the police and the criminal investigator and showed where they dumped the body, and proposed to the court to acquit him, annul the first-instance verdict, or at least sentence him to a lower sentence.
Skrinjar’s defense attorney was not present at the public session of the High Court, so the highlights from the complaint were read by Skrinjar himself, who also maintains that he is innocent. His view of the critical night is diametrically opposed. Trivić was supposed to take him with him as a witness when the debt was returned. He allegedly told him that Milan S. had enough space for only one car, and suggested that they go with only one car – Skrinjar’s, since he himself does not have enough gasoline. He also left his phone at home because Trivić allegedly requested it, who then allegedly attacked Milan S. Sam was in shock and was afraid that Trivić would do something similar to him. Despite everything, he partially resisted him, so that Trivić is said to have loaded the murdered man into the trunk himself. Yesterday, Skrinjar asked the court to sentence him to a minimum sentence or even lower than the minimum sentence in case of guilt, and his lawyer Željko Batinič already proposed to the court in his appeal to acquit him or at least annul the first-instance verdict.
No special extenuating circumstances
Trivić responded to Skrinjar’s words, saying that Skrinjar took advantage of him. Since Skrinjar had Milan S.’s phone number blocked, he concludes that they had something between them. He also pointed out that in Skrinjar’s car, “everything was bloody” on the driver’s seat, which is supposed to confirm that Skrinjar was in fact the murderer.
Although she was successful in the first instance, the senior prosecutor also appealed against the verdict of the Kranj court Nadja Gasserwhich calls for a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison for both defendants. According to her, the murder was not an act of impulsivity, a momentary dispute or recklessness, but rather they planned the murder, carried it out and tried to cover it up. The motive was purely self-interest, the murder was gruesome, they dumped the body in a place where it would be eaten by animals within a few days… The fact that both of them still have an empty criminal record and that they were (were) employed does not mean extraordinary mitigating circumstances, as this is expected of every individual. Even their regret for the death of Milan S. is questionable for the prosecutor, since at the same time neither of them admits to the murder.
