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 #8

[Rocket333]

Bingo! I claim seen and heard. They would not make a mistake about it, claiming her to be deceased if there was any, the slightest chance of that being an error. And also, no possibility, not the tiniest piece of possibility of an mis identification. They have to be absolutely sure it is her. And, consequently, absolutely sure that it was him that caused this horror.

Do you think they had enough for a murder charge at the time of the arrest?
What value do you think the subsequent search and interview added to their level of conviction?

 

[Trooper]

Do you think they had enough for a murder charge at the time of the arrest?
What value do you think the subsequent search and interview added to their level of conviction?

Yes. I think the police had enough. Everyone wants more of a good thing, even the police, but at the time they knocked on the door at 6am, yes, I think they had sufficient. To lay a charge of murder requires a hell of a lot. It's more than one detectives 'instinct'.. it has to be hard, repeated, unchangable, unique stuff. ..It all has to sheet home to the one suspect, the one the warrant is out on. So the starting point is high.

Value added by the search and interview... the search would have given up clothing, papers, documents, history, possibly tools, and maybe implements of some nature, but also to the trained eye, an insight into his overall living arrangements and habits., how he places things, what priority he hangs on to certain actions, ordered and disciplined or slothful and gritty ....

The interview, he , Stephenson, probably thought he was blocking the police with the silence, but trained interrogators can pick up an awful lot, a flicker of the eyebrow, a downturn of the lip, a sudden burst of prolonged blinking, uncontrolled reactions to scenarios and theories put to him. We speak as much without words as with, to someone who can read the signals.

Obviously, the conviction of the detectives doesn't appear to have changed, if anything, it has cemented in, really. Has it increased, I cannot tell . I expect it has, though.. I also genuinely believe that VICPOL will find this missing body. I do not think it was a matter of cunning and outstanding intelligence on the part of Mr Stephenson. That will tell, in the end.,,

 

[Dotta]

Yes. I think the police had enough. Everyone wants more of a good thing, even the police, but at the time they knocked on the door at 6am, yes, I think they had sufficient. To lay a charge of murder requires a hell of a lot. It's more than one detectives 'instinct'.. it has to be hard, repeated, unchangable, unique stuff. ..It all has to sheet home to the one suspect, the one the warrant is out on. So the starting point is high.

Value added by the search and interview... the search would have given up clothing, papers, documents, history, possibly tools, and maybe implements of some nature, but also to the trained eye, an insight into his overall living arrangements and habits., how he places things, what priority he hangs on to certain actions, ordered and disciplined or slothful and gritty ....

The interview, he , Stephenson, probably thought he was blocking the police with the silence, but trained interrogators can pick up an awful lot, a flicker of the eyebrow, a downturn of the lip, a sudden burst of prolonged blinking, uncontrolled reactions to scenarios and theories put to him. We speak as much without words as with, to someone who can read the signals.

Obviously, the conviction of the detectives doesn't appear to have changed, if anything, it has cemented in, really. Has it increased, I cannot tell . I expect it has, though.. I also genuinely believe that VICPOL will find this missing body. I do not think it was a matter of cunning and outstanding intelligence on the part of Mr Stephenson. That will tell, in the end.,,

So...
why do we need trials/Juries/Judges if Police's evidence is so solid that some think the accused is 100% guilty?

Body language?
Blinking?
Movement of the lips, etc. indicating guilt?

Ummm...
Poor those who had their reactions misread.

JMO

 

[Trooper]

So...
why do we need trials/Juries/Judges if Police's evidence is so solid that some think the accused is 100% guilty?

Body language?
Blinking?
Movement of the lips, etc. indicating guilt?

Ummm...
Poor those who had their reactions misread.

JMO

Police evidence to lay charges , particularly one of murder has to be solid. It cannot be flimsy. It has to be more than some blokes feelings. It has to meet the criteria of the Public prosecutor. He /she is the person who takes the Police case to court in front of judge. It has to be solid. And it is reasonable to assume that police who charge someone with murder is reasonably convinced that they did it.

Body language , Of course there are those, mainly people of reduced investigation who don't understand the purpose of body language, and for those who make a study of reading it, there is no explanation that would satisfy someone who rejects the precept. For those that do, perhaps a small peek .. crossed arms, most people when feeling defensive and about to lie, cross their arms,.. this is but one example, well known.

Prolonged bouts of blinking rapidly, is the liars dead giveaway. well known. AU had a prime minister who could not help himself doing this when he lied, which was mostly every day .

Under stress, people move their lips in various ways, that they would not do if they were aware. It may be something the detective states that sets off this unconscious movement, but those trained in it can pick it up. An accused person remaining silent, is not as silent as they think. No one is. We all have giveaway unconscious habits.

A trained observer of these signals does not misread them, generally speaking. That s what the training is about.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

So...
why do we need trials/Juries/Judges if Police's evidence is so solid that some think the accused is 100% guilty?

Body language?
Blinking?
Movement of the lips, etc. indicating guilt?

Ummm...
Poor those who had their reactions misread.

JMO

Well Said!

 

[JLZ]

Please, people, we don't want the thread shut down from each mid-afternoon again. We can disagree in respectful language, yes?

 

[Rocket333]

Yes. I think the police had enough. Everyone wants more of a good thing, even the police, but at the time they knocked on the door at 6am, yes, I think they had sufficient. To lay a charge of murder requires a hell of a lot. It's more than one detectives 'instinct'.. it has to be hard, repeated, unchangable, unique stuff. ..It all has to sheet home to the one suspect, the one the warrant is out on. So the starting point is high.

Value added by the search and interview... the search would have given up clothing, papers, documents, history, possibly tools, and maybe implements of some nature, but also to the trained eye, an insight into his overall living arrangements and habits., how he places things, what priority he hangs on to certain actions, ordered and disciplined or slothful and gritty ....

The interview, he , Stephenson, probably thought he was blocking the police with the silence, but trained interrogators can pick up an awful lot, a flicker of the eyebrow, a downturn of the lip, a sudden burst of prolonged blinking, uncontrolled reactions to scenarios and theories put to him. We speak as much without words as with, to someone who can read the signals.

Obviously, the conviction of the detectives doesn't appear to have changed, if anything, it has cemented in, really. Has it increased, I cannot tell . I expect it has, though.. I also genuinely believe that VICPOL will find this missing body. I do not think it was a matter of cunning and outstanding intelligence on the part of Mr Stephenson. That will tell, in the end.,,

I sense the reality here is going to be a let down.
I bet this was an impulsive act, and the accused just sorted it out afterwards whilst on the fly.
I bet it was relatively simple and straightforward to unravel too due to obvious errors being made.

 

[Dotta]

I sense the reality here is going to be a let down.
I bet this was an impulsive act, and the accused just sorted it out afterwards whilst on the fly.
I bet it was relatively simple and straightforward to unravel too due to obvious errors being made.

Yep.
I don't see this youth as a criminal mastermind.
Quite the contrary.

The very fact that he has been caught so quickly speaks volumes.

And I think that Samantha's body is concealed in the area known to the accused,
somewhere where he feels comfortable.

No surprise here.

JMO

 

[Trooper]

I sense the reality here is going to be a let down.
I bet this was an impulsive act, and the accused just sorted it out afterwards whilst on the fly.
I bet it was relatively simple and straightforward to unravel too due to obvious errors being made.

I think so too. Rookie's error. He made such a colossal mistake that he practically led police to his door. What that mistake was, I have no idea, but it was one of the quickest arrests made in a stranger/stranger murder that I know of, barring those with CCTV and witnesses.

 

[ProfCluezo]

Correct me if I wrong, but personally I would imagine it would be extremely unlikely that police could legitimately use their interpretation of body language as anything other than potentially suggestive…? Body language is, from what I understand, not an exact science…. ??!! JMO

 

[HoneyBunOne]

Apologies if this has been suggested previously, but a scenario just came to me.

Samantha is jogging along the road. Stephenson comes along in his car and for whatever reason, Stephenson becomes annoyed by Samantha. Perhaps he feels she has got in his way unnecessarily? Perhaps she happens to run past an intersection just as he gets there and he is unhappy he has to stop for her? Stephenson toots his horn or perhaps winds down the window and voices his disapproval. Samantha 51 and an experienced jogger is probably confident enough to tell a young loudmouth to pull his head in. Stephenson becomes further annoyed, gets out of the car and further remonstrates with Samantha. She tells him to POQ, as you would, and he loses it and strikes her. Samantha hits her head on the ground as she lands and is out cold or in a bad way....etc.

The good old coward's punch. A plausible scenario for sure.

Queensland. A while ago. We were all challenged the first time around. I thought that was me done. But we all went through it a second time. I was juror #11. I think body language and profiling are not done in Australia. It seemed much more random. And our jury was varied. No 'type'. I think we sometimes think tv is real. It sure isn't. Especially in Australia. Both prosecution and defence know we have a fair and equitable system. I've been on a jury several times. Only once for murder. I've seen defence lawyers not doing a very good job, because they know what is fair. Honestly, I don't believe jury profiling is really done at all. Shows like Bull are just that in Australia. Bull. Presume innocent and have a fair and equitable trial.

Pardon my ignorance, but can you please elaborate on what happens once you say you are impartial? Does each side get to choose 6 jurors? Or choose as many as they like and then the other side chooses 6 from that group? I can imagine that sub conscious profiling would occur when choosing jurors.

 

[Trooper]

Correct me if I wrong, but personally I would imagine it would be extremely unlikely that police could legitimately use their interpretation of body language as anything other than potentially suggestive…? Body language is, from what I understand, not an exact science…. ??!! JMO

I can correct you there. Police do use body language, or alternatively known as 'non verbal' language, every day. Sometimes their lives depend on it. You use it, unconsciously. I use it, unconsciously. Everything we see and hear is 'potentially suggestive' All of this is not confined to the realm of police. It's an every day thing. Psychiatry is not an exact science. Therapy is not an exact science. Chiropractic massage is not an exact science. A doctor in the Emergency ward has to use and read non verbal signals every minute of his/her shift, their patients are often traumatised into non verbal communication.

But it's ok for you personally to be unable to imagine this. That is not a defect, merely a situation.

 

[Minaka]

Does the accused have a grandiose sense of self-worth, or does he feel worthless wanting to exert power and humiliation to others.

His crime, IMO could also be due to poor social appropriateness, poor emotional regulation, poor morality, poor inhibition of inappropriate behaviour, poor control of intense emotion, poor impulse control. (Edited for brevity)

What's interesting about this case is the lack of local people coming forward saying 'I always knew such and such about the accused' or 'I always had a feeling because of this or that happened'. There's been nothing.

Not one person seems to have spoken out about him.

Perhaps they have, and we haven't heard it because of subjudice implications. I thought we would have heard whispers though.

From everything I've read, he appeared very 'normal'. Nothing I've read has raised any alarm bells for a 22 year old.

I think this is why this case if so intriguing, along with a host of other factors.

Can anyway recall a similar past case where there were no potential alarm bells? I don't want de-rail the thread, just think it would make interesting reading to try and understand how someone could potentially change overnight.

 

[JLZ]

The good old coward's punch. A plausible scenario for sure.


Pardon my ignorance, but can you please elaborate on what happens once you say you are impartial? Does each side get to choose 6 jurors? Or choose as many as they like and then the other side chooses 6 from that group? I can imagine that sub conscious profiling would occur when choosing jurors.

No. Each side is allowed to veto a certain number of the randomly selected potential jurors without having to give a reason. Apparently, in Victoria, the number is four.

 

[Dotta]

What's interesting about this case is the lack of local people coming forward saying 'I always knew such and such about the accused' or 'I always had a feeling because of this or that happened'. There's been nothing.

Not one person seems to have spoken out about him.

Perhaps they have, and we haven't heard it because of subjudice implications. I thought we would have heard whispers though.

From everything I've read, he appeared very 'normal'. Nothing I've read has raised any alarm bells for a 22 year old.

I think this is why this case if so intriguing, along with a host of other factors.

Can anyway recall a similar past case where there were no potential alarm bells?

All alleged "alarm bells" will be reported by the Press AFTER the trial.

Mark my words

JMO

 

[ProfCluezo]

I can correct you there. Police do use body language, or alternatively known as 'non verbal' language, every day. Sometimes their lives depend on it. You use it, unconsciously. I use it, unconsciously. Everything we see and hear is 'potentially suggestive' All of this is not confined to the realm of police. It's an every day thing. Psychiatry is not an exact science. Therapy is not an exact science. Chiropractic massage is not an exact science. A doctor in the Emergency ward has to use and read non verbal signals every minute of his/her shift, their patients are often traumatised into non verbal communication.

But it's ok for you personally to be unable to imagine this. That is not a defect, merely a situation.

Trooper, I completely agree with you that we all use body language consciously or unconsciously every day. My point was that I doubt police can use body language exclusively as a means to determine guilt or innocence in the absence of the accused refusing to cooperate for example… Body language would certainly be part of an overall impression for sure, but not used exclusively….

I believe we are agreeing.

 

[Trooper]

The good old coward's punch. A plausible scenario for sure.


Pardon my ignorance, but can you please elaborate on what happens once you say you are impartial? Does each side get to choose 6 jurors? Or choose as many as they like and then the other side chooses 6 from that group? I can imagine that sub conscious profiling would occur when choosing jurors.

There are whole firms of lawyers, particularly in the USA who make fortunes selling this exact commodity, Jury Selection. Days are spent rehearsing a case in front of a 'practice' jury., people who are hired to hear an attorney rehearse his case for his client, they have trained psychologists who lay out specific questions to jurors to gain some insight into how they will react. It hasn't reached this proportion as yet in AU <but it will, ,one day, Lots of reading of non verbal signals, lots of wierd and strange questions asked, .. do they get it right after all this? apparently so, it's a thriving trade.

 

[EricAcaciaAvenue]

I sense the reality here is going to be a let down.
I bet this was an impulsive act, and the accused just sorted it out afterwards whilst on the fly.
I bet it was relatively simple and straightforward to unravel too due to obvious errors being made.

Likewise - what's intriguing is that we just don't have any idea what the basic clues/evidence are.

 

[Trooper]

Trooper, I completely agree with you that we all use body language consciously or unconsciously every day. My point was that I doubt police can use body language exclusively as a means to determine guilt or innocence in the absence of the accused refusing to cooperate for example… Body language would certainly be part of an overall impression for sure, but not used exclusively….

I believe we are agreeing.

who says police use it exclusively? not me, not anyone. Its a TOOL. one of many.

We are not agreeing. do not even assume this could happen.

 

[Minaka]

All alleged "alarm bells" will be reported by the Press AFTER the trial.

Mark my words

JMO

I completely agree with you. However, don't some media agencies such as DM, still skirt the line of subjudice, if they categorically know something?

They'll word it very cautiously, and imply a little bit of this and that, while remaining on the right side of the law. I haven't seen any of that yet.

For example, such and such (not the accused, just a fictitious person) had a hobby of excavating in his spare time.
Nothing nefarious there, just a fact.