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 #4

[Dotta]

Ok, dear WS friends.

I still stick to my 3 leading theories:

1. Random attack
2. Random car hit, concealment of body
3. Attack by somebody she knew.
Somebody unbalanced, narcissistic and full of anger/rage towards her for whatever reason.
It was personal.

I exclude family (closest family)
And I exclude Business.

Time will tell.

But I'm afraid the Truth will take long time to be discovered.

JMO

 

[PolyDot]

How does her disappearance/death change the structure of her business?

This is an interesting question … a bit like who benefits from her death ?

In my opinion only -
- a family business usually is in joint names and can be tricky to divide up upon a marriage separation . in fact I have seen people stay in unhappy marriages because separating is seen as ‘difficult’ , my friend actually just walked away with nothing - the business was based around his trade .

 

[BreakingNews]

The other aspect in relation to the business that hasn’t been mentioned here yet is that as the Bookkeeper she would have been responsible for collections and payments. Not inconceivable that tensions might have arose with someone that owned the business money

I have raised the business aspect and that she would probably have safe combo. Maybe some knew that there might have been lots of cash in there. Cash is king in many dodgy deals. Crims can't keep their cash in a bank without questions. They keep their money in their socks in built-up runners. If they think they might be going to jail, they try to leave their cash with someone they 'trust' but that doesn't always end well. That's why on the Gold Coast there are so many payback attacks or murders. (I have worked in LE)

 

[southgoldengirl]

I am not sure what the clear signs are.

From what I can tell, the police are looking at those closest to Sam (normal investigation procedure).
And they are looking at known offenders (normal investigation procedure).
And they are looking at business dealings (normal investigation procedure).
And they are looking at any friends and associates Sam may have (normal investigation procedure).

The police typically start at those closest to the victim and work their way outwards. Counting people (POIs) potentially in or potentially out along the way as they determine the circumstances of Sam's relationship (or not) with all of these people.

In this case, it is a very difficult to read where the police are at in their reckonings. They are keeping a lot of information tightly under wraps, to ensure the integrity of their investigation and potential future prosecution.

imo the clear signs are that they haven't completely ruled out anyone. Three weeks into the investigation I would think that they could categorically rule out certain people, especially those close to home and they haven't done that. So reading between the lines I believe that they suspect one or more of these people to be involved.

 

[Black-Cat]

Having followed this case from the beginning and having read everything written etc, I think the police know exactly who killed Samantha. They have given us clear signs along the way.

Agreed

MOO

 

[southgoldengirl]

How does her disappearance/death change the structure of her business?

I think this line of thinking is a valid one, leading into motive.

 

[BreakingNews]

P

Ok, dear WS friends.

I still stick to my 3 leading theories:

1. Random attack
2. Random car hit, concealment of body
3. Attack by somebody she knew.
Somebody unbalanced, narcissistic and full of anger/rage towards her for whatever reason.
It was personal.

I exclude family.
And I exclude Business.

Time will tell.
But I'm afraid the Truth will take long time to discover.

JMO

Police are not saying public are at risk. I don't believe it is random or they would be warning public. They know it is personal to Sam or her fam. IMO it is business or family related. Even if it was from someone known to her who might be 'unhinged', police would be warning the public. I think that is why this is not random. It is someone who really wanted payback. Moo

 

[Dotta]

Police are not saying public are at risk. I don't believe it is random or they would be warning public. They know it is personal to Sam or her fam. IMO it is business or family related. Even if it was from someone known to her who might be 'unhinged', police would be warning the public. I think that is why this is not random. It is someone who really wanted payback. Moo

I'm very open-minded

 

[Naobh]

Agreed

MOO

Can you outline your reasoning?

 

[SouthAussie]

P

Police are not saying public are at risk. I don't believe it is random or they would be warning public. They know it is personal to Sam or her fam. IMO it is business or family related. Even if it was from someone known to her who might be 'unhinged', police would be warning the public. I think that is why this is not random. It is someone who really wanted payback. Moo

I don't think the police warn the public in a lone disappearance. Maybe if they think there is a serial killer or serial rapist out there. Which doesn't seem to be the case here.

Is there an example of the public being warned by the police when a sole person has disappeared in Australia?
I can't think of an example myself.

imo

 

[Black-Cat]

I think this line of thinking is a valid one, leading into motive.

Sometimes businesses are owned by a Family Trust which might include other brothers, sisters, parents, and the money that goes in is then distributed depending on how it is set up.

MOO

 

[Naobh]

I don't think the police warn the public in a lone disappearance. Maybe if they think there is a serial killer or serial rapist out there. Which doesn't seem to be the case here.

Is there an example of the public being warned by the police when a sole person has disappeared in Australia?
I can't think of an example myself.

imo

Yeah, with Jill Maegher. It might have been because they knew it was a known offender with a series of horrific crimes. But they've changed since then, because of the "victim blaming" issue I've brought up.

 

[Hestia's Fire]

How does her disappearance/death change the structure of her business?

She's listed on the shop website as co-owner with Mick, so I assume in the event of her death, he is now the sole owner of the business and their multi-million dollar home.

 

[Black-Cat]

Can you outline your reasoning?

Agreed upon, 'I think the police know exactly who killed Samantha,' and that they aren't concerned for public safety as it was targeted.

IMO

 

[Toowong(s)]

imo the clear signs are that they haven't completely ruled out anyone. Three weeks into the investigation I would think that they could categorically rule out certain people, especially those close to home and they haven't done that. So reading between the lines I believe that they suspect one or more of these people to be involved.

Until the offender is found or solid evidence it was a random or targeted attack, I think police will find it impossible to categorically rule out anybody who went searching in the forest after realising SM is missing but before police were alerted and the official search began. Anyone who did that has put themselves, their phone pings, their DNA, right in the frame as someone a defence could point toward to shed doubt that the accused is the guilty party. It puts an extra degree of difficulty on the situation unless police have iron clad evidence linking the accused to the crime. Noting it is also a clever way for a bad actor to justify their presence, their phone pings, their DNA in the area. IMO.

 

[Chimera]

@southgoldengirl ; I agree. No one has been ruled out and at this time, & I think that's all the update we're going to get until something breaks or Samantha is found.
Omo.

 

[BGirl88]

I don't think the police warn the public in a lone disappearance. Maybe if they think there is a serial killer or serial rapist out there. Which doesn't seem to be the case here.

Is there an example of the public being warned by the police when a sole person has disappeared in Australia?
I can't think of an example myself.

imo

Agree - thinking back to Jill Meagher, Stephanie Scott… one was a random attacker, one was known to her… no warnings to the public.

My theories:
- a planned abduction (someone known to her but not close family)… still undecided on business connection
- accident / hit by car / cover up
- random opportunistic attack.

 

[PolyDot]

I don't think the police warn the public in a lone disappearance. Maybe if they think there is a serial killer or serial rapist out there. Which doesn't seem to be the case here.

Is there an example of the public being warned by the police when a sole person has disappeared in Australia?
I can't think of an example myself.

imo

Yes I think you are right , police have moved away from warning women to be careful - for obvious reasons
stop telling women to be ‘safe ‘ , tell men to stop raping & killing !

 

[imstilla.grandma]

They suspect “one or more” parties were involved in her disappearance, and had new information about her movements.

Search parties, intrigue and a piece of Australian bushland hiding a secret: what happened to Samantha Murphy?

Weeks since she was last seen outside her Ballarat home, volunteers refused to give up the search for answers

www.theguardian.com

*”one or more” almost gives me hope. If there are two or more in cahoots, perhaps one will turn on the other and begin to talk. Media and LE can make good bedfellows. It’s been an information productive week.

 

[SouthAussie]

Until the offender is found or solid evidence it was a random or targeted attack, I think police will find it impossible to categorically rule out anybody who went searching in the forest after realising SM is missing but before police were alerted and the official search began. Anyone who did that has put themselves, their phone pings, their DNA, right in the frame as someone a defence could point toward to shed doubt that the accused is the guilty party. It puts an extra degree of difficulty on the situation unless police have iron clad evidence linking the accused to the crime. Noting it is also a clever way for a bad actor to justify their presence, their phone pings, their DNA in the area. IMO.

I do wonder though, as they know Sam reached that point in Mt Clear within an hour, who would be out there looking for Sam at 8am.

Ostensibly, she wouldn't have been due back home until around 9am. Perhaps by 9:30-10:00 someone at home might be wondering where the heck mum is, she should be back by now.

imo