Australia Samantha Murphy, 51, last seen leaving her property to go for a run in the Canadian State Forest, Ballarat, 4 Feb 2024 *Arrest* #10

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I should think that "plants" are given some training re possible ways to get a crim to open up to them, maybe by experienced plants, psychiatrists, ex crims. Perhaps they infer that they did something similar, for instance. And I think that perhaps someone in PS's position might be finding it quite hard and lonely, with only his secrets for company, and might find it a relief to unburden himself a little. JMO
One would think there would be an industry devoted to that very principle, K. Stephenson being portrayed as a raving drunken drugged up ratbag is at odds, to me, with the cool calculating behaviour demonstrated. The clueless crime . the blending in with the same community after the crime. The prolonged silence.

( the one disclaimer .. stranger./stranger crimes are hard to solve.. I still maintain he made a colossal, monumental gigantic error. because VICPOL got him without even interviewing him, they had already enough to charge him with murder, they knew that Mrs Murphy was dead ( search was called off, even without the body being found ) and VICPOL knew who did it, that it was murder, that it took place at Mt Clear at around 8am Sunday morning. That 's a hell of a lot of information without a body or a confession., VICPOL are a brisk outfit but they are not fortune tellers. )
 
Precisely. If it was, in deed, him that threw it. Which ... we don't know yet.
Indeed, any assumption of ANY assumed facts, (including the circumstances in which SMs phone came to be found lodged in mud at the periphery of a dam), are entirely speculatory…. ;) Unless verified by vicpol…

Perhaps I am being cynical but I personally would not take information listed on a website re terms and conditions of remand as necessarily reflecting an absolute state of truth either…

My experience of most websites is that they frequently contain outdated and/or inaccurate information…. Often more to do with ideals, as opposed to reality …
JMO…
 
Last edited:
"Daily Mail Australia understands police are still searching for Ms Murphy's
missing watch and headphones, or
a possible murder weapon."

.........

Police allege Stephenson

'deliberately attacked'

Ms Murphy in Mount Clear, about 7 km into her run on a route she had done 'countless' times.

He is yet to enter a plea and will next front court on August 8."

Back on the 7th March in-the official Police Presser

Patton said it was “a deliberate attack on Samantha”

Is that technically different in the correct use of English language
to “deliberately attacked” ????

About 5mins 40secs in the clip here is when Patton describes it that way ….


IMO
 
Reminds me of Bryan Kohberger, a young man with no prior history of violence and suddenly he snaps and kills 4 people with a knife in the middle of the night after breaking into their home. Then he drives home with his dad and is stopped by the police multiple times on his way across the entire US. Cool as a cucumber the whole time.
Allegedly let’s not forget …he hasn’t been in front of a jury yet. No shade Curious, I agree , if he’s guilty he’s got a hell of a poker face.
 
Back on the 7th March in-the official Police Presser

Patton said it was “a deliberate attack on Samantha”

Is that technically different in the correct use of English language
to “deliberately attacked” ????

About 5mins 40secs in the clip here is when Patton describes it that way ….


IMO

For me both expressions quoted
mean the same.
One is an adjective
and the other an adverb.

But both convey the same meaning.

But hey,
I'm a foreigner and English is a foreign language for me :D
 
For me both expressions quoted
mean the same.
One is an adjective
and the other an adverb.

But both convey the same meaning.

But hey,
I'm a foreigner and English is a foreign language for me :D
Thanks for your honesty!!! :D

For me they are different …. But that is JMO …..
To me, one implies “intent” and the other does not ….

IMO
 
Thanks for your honesty!!! :D

For me they are different …. But that is JMO …..
To me, one implies “intent” and the other does not ….

IMO

I see.
Your point, that is.

These nuances are lost on me haha
 
Not sure what you mean by technically a Saturday? Is that because the accused didn't sleep and was still partying from Saturday? It's alleged Samantha was murdered at around 8am on Sunday morning.

I don't know if I'd be travelling too far out of an area I'm quite familiar with to dispose of a body if it were me. Far too much in the way of possible CCTV and digital footprints, especially if you need your sat nav to get you home again from some random spot. Not to mention potential witnesses who saw your car. The area, which I think the accused knew well due to his outdoor lifestyle, potential for hiding from police on the back roads after benders, and growing up there, is littered with dense bushland areas and bodies of water. Plenty of locations to dump a body, including the good old mine shafts. It's like searching for a needle in a haystack,and I think he just got lucky so far. Or unlucky, whatever you want to call it given he is now in remand.

My theory is this: What started out as an accident or altercation turned to murder, likely by an instant decision fuelled by drink, drugs and/or anger, and the fear of this destroying his life, especially as he'd come across the radar of police before (his pending motor vehicle case). He probably had alcohol and drugs in his system and panicked, because that could be the nail in his coffin. Fighting one drink/drugs/reckless driving charge, OK. Fighting two, where someone possibly could have died, game over. Then the "Oh &^$#" moment. He either finds a way to dispose of her body very close to where she died, or gets her out of sight and into his vehicle, and madly thinks of what to do next. May even drive around areas he knows well, looking and thinking as he goes. Perhaps he drove through or disposed of her body in the Elsworth Street area that police became interested in.

At some point, knowing time was ticking with a body in the back, and possibly having to account for his whereabouts, he chooses a location. My money is on a body of water somewhere relatively nearby. No weighing her down, just tossing/dragging and hoping for the best, much like the phone. Job done, he goes home to shower, change, maybe sleep, try to go on like normal, or meet his obligations that day. Perhaps he took her ear buds, phone and watch, or a combination of these and worried about what to do with those small objects later. Maybe Samantha had her phone out and it was the only thing that was flung from her body during the murder.

After some careful thinking, and/or at a time that suited him better, he took the phone and threw it into a nice large nearby dam on his travels somewhere, or just a random dam he knew about. Perhaps other nearby dams may hold earbuds, a watch and a murder weapon? Everything disposed of in his mind, and he went about his daily life until cops got him and here we are.

All my imagination and thoughts only.
Accident turned to murder bothers me as there is a post somewhere else on this thread with photo of a previous violent attack on a lone female runner in the same area. Coincidence or a link?
 
Different in what way?
Please explain!
I'm really curious!
Thanks :)
I am thinking “legally” …. Words or word choice can be so important… especially in the Aus Legal System ..

“Deliberately attacked” … to me says he planned the attack, he went out of his way to attack Sam ..

“A deliberate attack” suggests to me more unplanned spontaneous act of rage type attack versus a “deliberately planned attack” …

BUT ALL MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
457
Total visitors
542

Forum statistics

Threads
608,246
Messages
18,236,774
Members
234,325
Latest member
davenotwayne
Back
Top