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

[Cliff Hardy]

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.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

Just read police have established a link between Samanatha and Stephenson.

Stephenson attended the same school that Samantha worked at years ago. Samantha worked as a volunteer in the uniform shop at St Francis Xavier Primary School where Stephenson attended as a child.

Hard to see much in this other than coincidence.

 

[Dotta]

While I follow cases on WS,
it is often mentioned by posters that victims are usually concealed in areas known to perps.

Areas where they feel comfortable.

It would be good to check such places the accused frequented.

I still think about lakes/ponds/dams as he was an avid rower.

Does he gave a boat?
I wonder.

JMO

 

[Passerby80]

Hi everyone, long time reader, first time poster. And am a Ballarat local, as are a few others here.
As a local, we're all privvy to a lot of discussion... some is wild, some is absurd, and some has.... legs. Usually due to the source of said info.

<modsnip>

 

[Deleted member 293720]

Omg Oona!!! I hadn’t even considered the possibility PS may have used SMs phone to photograph or film her…!!! Perhaps that’s what happened if PS didn’t want to use his own phone (to potentially incriminate himself)… and perhaps (in his “bender” state), he may have thought “I can use her phone”… not considering at the time that any pics etc he might take might go straight to the cloud and be retrieved by police …. Omg… this could be it!! Especially if “face recognition” could still work…dead or alive so-to-speak…

How would the murder have been captured though… allegedly??

It could only be captured on dashcam or his phone or an accomplice

The police were monitoring SM's GPS on her watch for heart rate etc..

 

[Deleted member 293720]

Hi everyone, long time reader, first time poster. And am a Ballarat local, as are a few others here.
As a local, we're all privvy to a lot of discussion... some is wild, some is absurd, and some has.... legs. Usually due to the source of said info.

<modsnip>

We have to remember in this investigation

The police have strenuously said this murder was "A DELIBERATE ACT" and "not a hit and run" on SM

 

[Passerby80]

We have to remember in this investigation

The police have strenuously said this murder was "A DELIBERATE ACT" and "not a hit and run" on SM

True but hypothetically if someone hit someone, but didn't kill them, then took actions subsequently upon that person that caused death, that is murder and not hit and run.

 

[Trooper]

True but hypothetically if someone hit someone, but didn't kill them, then took actions subsequently upon that person that caused death, that is murder and not hit and run.

In that case you float there, he would be charged with culpable driving, causing death. Also, failure to assist , failure to report the accident, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, Interfering with the corpse, etc.

But he is charged with murder.

Specifically, Murder is defined as the unlawful and intentional killing of another person. A person will be found guilty of murder if the Prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

• The accused caused the victim's death;
• The accused's actions were conscious, voluntary and deliberate;
• At the time of performing the actions that caused the death, the accused intended to kill or seriously injure, knowing that death or serious injury would occur; and
• The accused killed the victim without lawful justification.

He has not been charged with a hit and run incident. The police have made this as clear as it is possible to make, on the grounds that it was not a hit and run incident. Further more, they claim, she was 'attacked' no mention of being attacked by a vehicle.

 

[Deleted member 293720]

True but hypothetically if someone hit someone, but didn't kill them, then took actions subsequently upon that person that caused death, that is murder and not hit and run.

Let's get it right...That would be

Voluntary manslaughter, It is an offence at common law. It is sometimes also referred to as manslaughter,
considered less premeditated than murder.

First degree murder, Is any intention murder that is wilful and PREMEDITATED with thought out beforehand

Which the police have continuously stated "A DELIBERATE ACT" and "not a hit and run" on SM


This will also be up to what the jury believes in

 

[Trooper]

Also, if the dreadful event was a mere hit and run, nothing deliberate or premeditated , or containing any malicious and reckless indifference to human life in it, just an unfortunate accident, why doesn't his Lawyer say so? If that's the defence, he needs to speak up. ... he could have his bail redacted and be out and up on the farm, going to work installing air conditioning all over Ballarat by now , in the beautiful autumn weather, instead of sitting silent on remand.

 

[Trooper]

Let's get it right...That would be

Voluntary manslaughter, It is an offence at common law. It is sometimes also referred to as manslaughter,
considered less premeditated than murder.

First degree murder, Is any intention murder that is wilful and PREMEDITATED with thought out beforehand

Which the police have continuously stated "A DELIBERATE ACT" and "not a hit and run" on SM


This will also be up to what the jury believes in

yea, that too, what Nifty said..

 

[hillshaveeyes]

In that case you float there, he would be charged with culpable driving, causing death. Also, failure to assist , failure to report the accident, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, Interfering with the corpse, etc.

But he is charged with murder.

Specifically, Murder is defined as the unlawful and intentional killing of another person. A person will be found guilty of murder if the Prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

• The accused caused the victim's death;
• The accused's actions were conscious, voluntary and deliberate;
• At the time of performing the actions that caused the death, the accused intended to kill or seriously injure, knowing that death or serious injury would occur; and
• The accused killed the victim without lawful justification.

He has not been charged with a hit and run incident. The police have made this as clear as it is possible to make, on the grounds that it was not a hit and run incident. Further more, they claim, she was 'attacked' no mention of being attacked by a vehicle.

I have found previous articles where people have been charged with murder for a hit and run.

Alleged driver charged with murder over hit-and-run that killed Queensland police officer

A 33-year-old woman is charged over the alleged hit-and-run murder of a police officer north of Brisbane.

www.abc.net.au

The claim of being 'attacked' though is definitive.

 

[Trooper]

I have found previous articles where people have been charged with murder for a hit and run.

Alleged driver charged with murder over hit-and-run that killed Queensland police officer

A 33-year-old woman is charged over the alleged hit-and-run murder of a police officer north of Brisbane.

www.abc.net.au

The claim of being 'attacked' though is definitive.

Yes, I am aware of other people charged with murder for a hit and run, but in this case, the police Commander has said, clearly , in plain English, with no ambiguity, that it was not a hit and run. What more can one say? It is what it is. It seems mighty hard to give up on this idea, but there is the great difficulty getting past what the Police Commander has said, publicly.

It is very hard to argue that the Police Commander knows less about this than you or me.

 

[Cliff Hardy]

True but hypothetically if someone hit someone, but didn't kill them, then took actions subsequently upon that person that caused death, that is murder and not hit and run.

Correct. If the person was injured when hit by the car but murdered afterwards, in a separate act, it is murder.

 

[Dotta]

Dbm

 

[Deleted member 293720]

It could only be captured on dashcam or his phone or an accomplice

The police were monitoring SM's GPS on her watch for heart rate etc..

It is unclear what specific evidence led police to Stephenson's arrest.

However, it's understood a large part of Victoria Police's investigation was CCTV footage from around East Ballarat.

Officers recently obtained videos from a light industrial and residential area, with homes and businesses in Elsworth, Joseph and Butt streets confirming police requested their security footage.

Elsworth St leads to bushland managed by Parks Victoria.

It is not known if any of the footage obtained shows Ms Murphy or any vehicles of interest.

Officers have also searched the area, which includes car detailing, roller-door and gymnasium businesses.


* Possibly SM, Could have been taken firstly to an Industrial building

And then later sadly dumped somewhere

If this was the case, hopefully police have got some DNA and other evidence as well

What life will be like in prison for Sam Murphy's alleged killer

An ex-inmate has spoken out about what jail could be like for the man accused of killing mother-of-three Samantha Murphy.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[BreakingNews]

I apologise in advance if I've missed this/if this is a stupid question... BUT is there no affidavit?

An affidavit for what? There will be a record of interview. Recorded, then transcribed for the brief of evidence ( or that is the Qld system).
Btw, no such think as a stupid question.

 

[Passerby80]

In that case you float there, he would be charged with culpable driving, causing death. Also, failure to assist , failure to report the accident, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, Interfering with the corpse, etc.

But he is charged with murder.

Specifically, Murder is defined as the unlawful and intentional killing of another person. A person will be found guilty of murder if the Prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

• The accused caused the victim's death;
• The accused's actions were conscious, voluntary and deliberate;
• At the time of performing the actions that caused the death, the accused intended to kill or seriously injure, knowing that death or serious injury would occur; and
• The accused killed the victim without lawful justification.

He has not been charged with a hit and run incident. The police have made this as clear as it is possible to make, on the grounds that it was not a hit and run incident. Further more, they claim, she was 'attacked' no mention of being attacked by a vehicle.

Further, the definition of murder may be met:

"
The offending act does not have to be the sole cause of the victim’s death to be considered murder. The Court can still find a defendant guilty of murder if the act significantly contributed to the death. However, the act must have been done voluntarily, meaning that the accused had conscious control of their body movements.

Also, note that the accused can be found guilty if they knew it was probable that serious injury would result from their voluntary acts. This is called reckless murder. An offence is considered “reckless” if the accused intentionally committed an act and knew that it could reasonably cause harm or kill someone, even if they did not intend to harm anyone. In other words, the accused was willing to run the risk of someone else being injured or killed when they committed the act."

Crimes Act of 1958: Manslaughter Defence Lawyers Victoria

Our murder & manslaughter defence lawyers are extensively experienced in matters in the Supreme Court of Victoria and work to obtain the best outcome.

www.sherlawyers.com.au

Finally, as unsavoury it is to consider, if a person was injured by a car but not killed, but then killed intentionally via say, suffocating or strangling, that is planned and intentional and that would be murder.

 

[BreakingNews]

This is true of course, but what is quite unusual in this case is that a suspect has been arrested and charged with murder, with Police making quite firm statements that they know (a) the victim is dead and (b) that it was a deliberate killing; but there is no information at all about a basic theory of the case.

That is pretty rare I think - normally there would be, either through police making information public or from the known facts, some outline understanding on the part of the press/public as to the nature and basis of the charge - motive/relationship, forensic/electronic evidence, discovery of body etc.

Whereas here - unless the Police have gone totally nuts - it is apparent that they must have some absolutely crucial evidence, the nature of which is not known at all. Which is going to prompt curiosity!

I don't think it is unusual at all. Obviously police don't have to tell us anything. They will be busy putting their brief of evidence together. They have no need to disclose anything more. They don't want to sway a jury, nor do they want to show their hand to the defence until 2 weeks before the 8 August. So don't expect any more information from VICPOL until Aug 8. We have a fair legal system in Australia where everyone is entitled to a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty applies to the alleged accused. I have known of Websleuths shutting a site until a trial to stop subjudical interference. Be patient, peeps.

 

[Trooper]

Further, the definition of murder may be met:

"
The offending act does not have to be the sole cause of the victim’s death to be considered murder. The Court can still find a defendant guilty of murder if the act significantly contributed to the death. However, the act must have been done voluntarily, meaning that the accused had conscious control of their body movements.

Also, note that the accused can be found guilty if they knew it was probable that serious injury would result from their voluntary acts. This is called reckless murder. An offence is considered “reckless” if the accused intentionally committed an act and knew that it could reasonably cause harm or kill someone, even if they did not intend to harm anyone. In other words, the accused was willing to run the risk of someone else being injured or killed when they committed the act."

Crimes Act of 1958: Manslaughter Defence Lawyers Victoria

Our murder & manslaughter defence lawyers are extensively experienced in matters in the Supreme Court of Victoria and work to obtain the best outcome.

www.sherlawyers.com.au

Finally, as unsavoury it is to consider, if a person was injured by a car but not killed, but then killed intentionally via say, suffocating or strangling, that is planned and intentional and that would be murder.

Yes. all this. and more, all under the umbrella of murder . The point being, the police Commander ruled out, categorically, the concept of hit and run in this instance.

Unsavoury as it is to consider, indeed, but there it is. Not a hit and run incident. Not my opinion, but what the Police Commander, Shane Patton stated in a press conference, in answer to a specific question regarding some involvement of a vehicle.