Australia Samantha Murphy, 51, last seen leaving her property to go for a run in the Canadian State Forest, Ballarat 100km NW of Melbourne, 4 Feb 2024 #6

[Kemug]

If I’m ever under surveillance for a crime I am all kinds of stuffed

Webslewths has me googling all sorts of questionable things!

Join the club! (literally )

 

[Nikynoo]

This is interesting.

I know LE have stated this was not a hit and run. I questioned this theory awhile back on if the accused decided to drive under the influence, hit SM and then hid her body instead of calling authorities - would that be enough grounds for a murder charge instead of manslaughter?

Also when you think about it, a hit and run would result in less evidence than a perp handling the body, placing the victim in their car and transferring DNA everywhere.

It was not a hit and run because a body was not left behind, but yes, if the driver was 'reckless' that would be a murder charge.

 

[emirates1957]

I really don't see what his father's achievements have to do with Sam's alleged murder IMHO

Oh hell yes !!

 

[nhmemorymaker]

I may be clutching at straws here, but with little info to go on, here are a few free floating associations …. Given the speed of the police notification and initial search for Samantha, the accused did not have long to collect and dispose of the body. Perhaps he exited the location first, and took his time to later dispose of the body? Of course the longer he took to do so, the greater the risk of being found with the body… The fact that the body has still not been found, in spite of rigorous searching for 5 weeks now, suggests to me a more methodical, calculated process rather than a panicked and disorganised effort? (Though I’m no expert). I may be completely wrong but as I think this through I sense a conspicuous absence of emotion, as well as some magical thinking, in this hypothetical scenario…. There is almost a quality of “now you see it, now you don’t…”. Aka., if the body “disappears” nothing actually happened… possibly an underlying lack of object constancy as seen in an infant/young child? I wonder if the accused’s silence reflects a similar sleight of mind? Aka., “if I don’t admit it, nothing happened?” All completely hypothetical, JMO…

I believe he *knows* he cannot say anything. *Anything* will incriminate. That is his only trump card. ...silence.
And I believe he *talked it through* with some one, or some ones. That should be the weak link.

moo

 

[Nifty]

My impression was that they were hitting him with the most severe offence, so that they could negotiate (eg if he reveals the location of the body) then they can potentially downgrade the charge. I don't know for sure, but I'm certain I've seen this happen before.

The decision to drop the charge is ultimately up to the police and court system

the police are looking like they have a strong case and some pretty compelling evidence

even without Samantha's body at present to charge him with murder

In Victoria, they have “no body, no parole” laws

 

[Voluspa]

It was not a hit and run because a body was not left behind, but yes, if the driver was 'reckless' that would be a murder charge.

Exactly.

LE also stated it was a deliberate attack though, that's the part that gets me.

Driving under the influence is reckless. Could deliberately allowing someone to die instead of seeking medical help for them be considered intent to kill?

 

[Whatson]

Read this over the weekend, others may find useful

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/culpable-driving-causing-death-the-law-in-victoria-australia-59988

 

[nhmemorymaker]

LE were onto him within two weeks of SM disappearance, did the fires occur within that two week time frame or after ?

Do we know this as fact...(onto him within 2 weeks)???
As I have mentioned a few times, I struggle with JUST HOW LONG, LE seemed to know or found NOTHING. Im going to try to go back to find those LE statements of knowing nothing.... but if anyone has one of the msm articles handy.... please share

 

[Whatson]

I was thinking if it was an initial accident wouldn’t the accused admit that now? It’s all out there. His entire family are now in the public eye.
What could staying silent in this matter of occurrence achieve?
Surely if it was an accident and cover up there is still some form of coming back from that. Maybe not much but there would be more understanding to a degree. I just can’t see someone that committed an initial accident (regardless of what happened post that) not revealing that or offering a kind of cooperation with LE?? MOO

I feel somewhat the same way as taken from the link I posted, the standard sentence for culpable driving is 8 years, although there could be further charges added.


Sentence:
This is an indictable offence. If found guilty of this offence, a person is liable to level 3 imprisonment which is 20 years maximum, or a level 3 fine or both.

The standard sentence for this offence is 8 years.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/culpable-driving-causing-death-the-law-in-victoria-australia-59988

 

[Voluspa]

Read this over the weekend, others may find useful

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/culpable-driving-causing-death-the-law-in-victoria-australia-59988

Thank you for sharing.

I guess the only difference with the examples shown is a perp hiding the body and evading authorities for 5 weeks while knowing the town is searching for the victim! Hit him with the highest charge you can and work from there.

 

[Nifty]

It was not a hit and run because a body was not left behind, but yes, if the driver was 'reckless' that would be a murder

Reckless would fall under Involuntary Manslaughter

 

[Nikynoo]

Reckless would fall under Involuntary Manslaughter

I disagree, the below is the third arm under which a murder charge can be laid. see my previous post for link:

• Reckless indifference to human life: This involves demonstrating that the defendant’s actions disregarded the potential for causing death, even without a specific intention to kill.

 

[Nikynoo]

Exactly.

LE also stated it was a deliberate attack though, that's the part that gets me.

Driving under the influence is reckless. Could deliberately allowing someone to die instead of seeking medical help for them be considered intent to kill?

no intention to kill see below:

• Reckless indifference to human life: This involves demonstrating that the defendant’s actions disregarded the potential for causing death, even without a specific intention to kill.

 

[Voluspa]

This is the requirement for murder in NSW (not Australian, so please correct me if I am wrong).
In NSW, Section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 defines murder and manslaughter. It involves a voluntary act by someone that causes a death of a person where there was an:

• Intent to kill: This requires establishing the defendant deliberately planned and executed the killing; or
• Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm; or
• Reckless indifference to human life: This involves demonstrating that the defendant’s actions disregarded the potential for causing death, even without a specific intention to kill.

Underlining mine.

Source Degrees of Murder in Australia | JB Solicitors

IMO, if the D was (as alledged) involved in drinking and drug taking in the early hours of Sunday - this would fall under the third of the above. D was 'reckless' because D chose to drive whilst under the influence (and this is also an illegal act). IMO, This also negates 'accident' under the eyes of the law because of the 'reckless' element.

Here is the post with link.

 

[bearbear]

The police have been very tight lipped, as they should be, about most aspects of the information/evidence against the accused - but the one thing the have stated VERY clearly is that this was NOT a hit and run. So we can take that off the table.
Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but it just keeps coming up in my thoughts - the accused has been charged with Murder, yet SM's body has not been located as yet, so am I correct in thinking there must be some direct irrefutable evidence that shows that she is deceased? I know they can prosecute without a body, but unless there was proof that SM was no longer alive would they not be charging him with a lesser offence?

im thinking they must have video footage showing her death or a witness has come forward, otherwise how can they be so adament, plus stating her death was deliberate

 

[nhmemorymaker]

no intention to kill see below:

• Reckless indifference to human life: This involves demonstrating that the defendant’s actions disregarded the potential for causing death, even without a specific intention to kill.

I suspect we will have to remind ourselves and continue to reference this "reckless indifference to human life", quite often.
If the case comes down to this, we will be in for one very long trial....

moo.

 

[Hats]

Do we know this as fact...(onto him within 2 weeks)???
As I have mentioned a few times, I struggle with JUST HOW LONG, LE seemed to know or found NOTHING. Im going to try to go back to find those LE statements of knowing nothing.... but if anyone has one of the msm articles handy.... please share

If you find anything, I am sure they will be misquoted statements. I have never heard the investigators on the case say anything to this effect.

 

[Nifty]

This is the requirement for murder in NSW (not Australian, so please correct me if I am wrong).
In NSW, Section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 defines murder and manslaughter. It involves a voluntary act by someone that causes a death of a person where there was an:

• Intent to kill: This requires establishing the defendant deliberately planned and executed the killing; or
• Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm; or
• Reckless indifference to human life: This involves demonstrating that the defendant’s actions disregarded the potential for causing death, even without a specific intention to kill.

Underlining mine.

Source Degrees of Murder in Australia | JB Solicitors

IMO, if the D was (as alledged) involved in drinking and drug taking in the early hours of Sunday - this would fall under the third of the above. D was 'reckless' because D chose to drive whilst under the influence (and this is also an illegal act). IMO, This also negates 'accident' under the eyes of the law because of the 'reckless' element.

This is the requirements for murder in Victoria

In Victoria, murder is recognised as the intentional and unlawful killing of another person. To prove a charge of murder, the prosecution must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused:

• Voluntarily committed acts which caused the victim’s death;
• Had the intention to kill, or cause really serious injury or knowing it was probable that death or serious injury would result; and
• Had no lawful justification or defence for those acts.

 

[Voluspa]

no intention to kill see below:

• Reckless indifference to human life: This involves demonstrating that the defendant’s actions disregarded the potential for causing death, even without a specific intention to kill.

I was initially questioning the intention to kill because LE have stated this was a deliberate attack.

Could deliberate mean deliberately driving under the influence knowing you're at risk to others? Or deliberately concealing a body and not reporting it?

Perhaps they've worded it this way and charged the accused with straight up murder because he's illegally driving on drugs, killed SM in the process and then concealed her body instead of calling authorities... Sorry I'm just trying to make sense of this theory and the legal jargon as I know many want this theory to be disregarded because LE state it's not a hit and run as such. IMO.

 

[Angeline]

Moo.. if it did start as a verbal argument between the two and he got out of his auto and became physically aggressive and this caused her death. Would that be seen as deliberate and therefore murder?

From what I understand, manslaughter is when someone dies, but the perp didn't mean to kill them. It wasn't their intention, but maybe the intent was to injure them.

Then again, one of the definitions of "murder" posted above states an reckless indifference to human life, even if not intentional. So confusing.