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

[Lemony]

On what basis do we know as fact that the accused has said “nothing, zip, nada” to police? Or is this an assumption?/speculation? Wasn’t the accused interviewed for hours before they arrested him? How would a member of the general public know exactly what might have been said (or not said)?

He was arrested then interviewed.

 

[Trooper]

Shane Patton says, he has said nothing. He also said nothing at his hearing at the Magistrates court, except for agreeing with the magistrate that he could hear the magistrate. He was asked if he could hear, and he said , 'yes'.

That's it.

 

[Trooper]

He was arrested then interviewed.

You are correct , there. He was arrested, interviewed, and then charged with murder. In that order.

 

[Deleted member 340727]

The main proof, I am thinking is, the police must have video recording with the accused and Samantha and photos
that shows the accused assaulting Samantha and then killing her

I do not know if this aspect has been nailed by the Apple watch approach? Have we established that if the matter at hand in argument that if SM with her Apple watch intact at all times, and if we suspect that SM was allegedly assaulted and then allegedly murdered: would this entire episode(s) be captured by the monitoring and scientific data being recorded and collected in that Apple watch and then that data being sent where? And was this the delay with the police including LE in their ability to actually document what actually happened to SM and all events 4 February 2024?
I understand my longhand is profound in my postings but I am trying to make sure we have pushed all factors surrounding the event(s) and in this case the actual recordings of the Apple watch and exactly what it would have recorded. The Apple watch records the respiratory and breathing rates. I am of the opinion that the Apple watch video recorder has to be manually operated to record. MOO

 

[louisepiglet]

You are correct , there. He was arrested, interviewed, and then charged with murder. In that order.

It sounds strange. I cannot believe they all sat there for 30 hours and said nothing. LE didn't tell him why they knew it was him and he didn't deny any involvement. They just sat there and looked at each other. Weird. An awful lot of wasted time if they knew they were going to charge him anyway.

 

[Trooper]

It sounds strange. I cannot believe they all sat there for 30 hours and said nothing. LE didn't tell him why they knew it was him and he didn't deny any involvement. They just sat there and looked at each other. Weird. An awful lot of wasted time if they knew they were going to charge him anyway.

Shane Patton didn't say the police said nothing for 30 hours. He said the suspect said nothing, nothing , nothing. So it was not a dialogue, but a monologue. The police told him, I presume , what they figured out he had done, and he said nothing. According to Shane Patton, the police Commander.

It would not be wasted time for the detectives, I wouldn't think. They would be able to get a bit of a measure of Mr Stephenson, this being the first time they had spoken with him.

It would have been informative for them, in so far as while he kept his silence, unconscious body movements, facial tics, uncontrolled facial expressions would have been tremendously informative to these detectives for whom this is their bread and butter.

 

[ProfCluezo]

It would not be wasted time for the detectives, I wouldn't think. They would be able to get a bit of a measure of Mr Stephenson, this being the first time they had spoken with him.

It would have been informative for them, in so far as while he kept his silence, unconscious body movements, facial tics, uncontrolled facial expressions would have been tremendously informative to these detectives for whom this is their bread and butter.

30 hours of just observing body language…?

Wow.

I’m impressed.

 

[Trooper]

Mr Patton didn't say if it was 30 consecutive hours, or which piddle breaks the suspect took, or the detectives, who must take those kind of breaks as well, but I see no reason to argue with the 30 hour claim . It's what Shane Patton said, and no one has disagreed with that claim, no detective has said, oh, no, wait a moment, it was only 19 hours, .... when they tell me it WAS NOT 30 hours, well. I 'll revise my ideas. But until then, I go along with the number Patton says.

Anyone is welcome to enter into some argy bargy about if it was 30 hours or not, but for me, I 'll take Patton at his word.

 

[Deleted member 340727]

Mr Patton didn't say if it was 30 consecutive hours, or which piddle breaks the suspect took, or the detectives, who must take those kind of breaks as well, but I see no reason to argue with the 30 hour claim . It's what Shane Patton said, and no one has disagreed with that claim, no detective has said, oh, no, wait a moment, it was only 19 hours, .... when they tell me it WAS NOT 30 hours, well. I 'll revise my ideas. But until then, I go along with the number Patton says.

Anyone is welcome to enter into some argy bargy about if it was 30 hours or not, but for me, I 'll take Patton at his word

So Trooper the long, the short and the tall of this extended period of nothingness is the suspected analysis of non verbal communication in supposed advice from legal advice and that is to say nothing. Is this the summary.

 

[BreakingNews]

Everyone's arguments are important. Everyone here has their own points of view in what occurred and how they would see it played out. It is difficult to understand why the alleged perp. has not co-operared but we can suspect reasons.

Great that you acknowledge everyone's point of view. Yes that's what we do. Sometimes we put out theories, not that we actually believe the theories, might just be thoughts to discuss.

 

[Trooper]

So Trooper the long, the short and the tall of this extended period of nothingness is the suspected analysis of non verbal communication in supposed advice from legal advice and that is to say nothing. Is this the summary.

I don't know anything about his legal advice , at all. I would think, that his solicitor at the time would have outlined his options, and got some feedback from him, but it is also entirely possible that he is not speaking with his solicitor, OR his court appointed Barrister, whoever that may be. How would I know this? it's a useless question to ask. I can only guess.

I can say that he would not have been advised to keep the whereabouts of Mrs' Murphy's body a secret, by either his solicitor or his barrister.

But I am convinced that the detectives would have kept that initial and as far we we know ONLY interview that has taken place with no problems with the suspect not speaking to them for as long as it suited them, within the limits of the law. 30 hours is fair enough, they could have gone on another 12 or even 15 if they wanted to.

But it is not rational to claim the detectives came away with nothing. Just because he didn't speak. That is not how interrogations work, not in any police force. We all 'speak' even when silent, especially in the situation Mr Stephenson was in.

 

[SouthAussie]

Comm Patton said they interviewed the accused for a "number of hours".

9News said that he said they questioned the accused for more than 30 hours. Link

I am guessing that the quoted "number of hours" is correct, and the "30 hours" is the 9News own deduction of .... he was arrested around 6am, charged some time the following afternoon, that is more than 30 hours.



"The man was interviewed over a number of hours, a number of search warrants have been executed, as a result of those investigations, he has today been charged with the murder of Samantha.

Will be alleging that murder occurred at Mount Clear the day she disappeared. In the interview with the suspect, he has not disclosed to police where her body is. I want to be very clear on limiting what I can say given there has now been a charge of murder laid.

This investigation is far from over though ....... "

Victoria police say investigation into alleged murder of Samantha Murphy ‘far from over’

 

[BreakingNews]

Mr Patton didn't say if it was 30 consecutive hours, or which piddle breaks the suspect took, or the detectives, who must take those kind of breaks as well, but I see no reason to argue with the 30 hour claim . It's what Shane Patton said, and no one has disagreed with that claim, no detective has said, oh, no, wait a moment, it was only 19 hours, .... when they tell me it WAS NOT 30 hours, well. I 'll revise my ideas. But until then, I go along with the number Patton says.

Anyone is welcome to enter into some argy bargy about if it was 30 hours or not, but for me, I 'll take Patton at his word.

In a past life I used to transcribe police interviews for court. At no time did I ever have to type how long the interview took. There was always the initial rider at the start about the accused being able to call a solicitor at any time. When that happened, I only typed what was actually said. Might have been Dect: ... has requested a solicitor. Then the next I would type was ...returning to interview in the presence of... And that is all the courts would know. Verbatim interview.
Can anyone tell me the correct spelling of someone saying they had done a u-eh?

 

[McCoy]

well..not really. He , Gerard, was for some time, running a long term affair with a colleague from his work, he spoke about his plans to get rid of his wife, he was running his real estate office at a loss, scamming the books, he told people he owned his house, but he was renting it, he told his mistress that his wife was the cause of all his troubles.. that is a non functioning person. If you mean , did he APPEAR to be functioning, that's a different matter. He appeared to be functioning to various clients, at various times.

Where as, this young bloke has no background that anyone knows anything about. .. in the high functioning personality disorder circus, he is , to all intents and purposes, an unknown entity. Except for the murder. Of a complete stranger.

Edited to add.. Gerard was so low functioning, the first copper he spoke with ,( he rang them to tell them his wife had 'disappeared' the young copper looked at his face, saw the scratches and immed. called his supervisor. Gerard was THE only suspect 5 hours after he murdered Allison)

Yes, he appeared to be functioning, I lived in the suburb and knew them both. Most people were hoodwinked by him before it all happened

 

[Deleted member 340727]

I don't know anything about his legal advice , at all. I would think, that his solicitor at the time would have outlined his options, and got some feedback from him, but it is also entirely possible that he is not speaking with his solicitor, OR his court appointed Barrister, whoever that may be. How would I know this? it's a useless question to ask. I can only guess.

I can say that he would not have been advised to keep the whereabouts of Mrs' Murphy's body a secret, by either his solicitor or his barrister.

But I am convinced that the detectives would have kept that initial and as far we we know ONLY interview that has taken place with no problems with the suspect not speaking to them for as long as it suited them, within the limits of the law. 30 hours is fair enough, they could have gone on another 12 or even 15 if they wanted to.

But it is not rational to claim the detectives came away with nothing. Just because he didn't speak. That is not how interrogations work, not in any police force. We all 'speak' even when silent, especially in the situation Mr Stephenson was in.

Thank you for this explanation and also all of your other opinions regarding the internal workings of the post arrest interview. Also to the other subsequent interviews as I suspect the detectives are upping their strategies to get information out of the alleged perp. and the whereabouts of SM. This I suspect is the dialogue we are not privy to on a day to day basis but is reflected in the statements coming out that the alleged perp. is still not saying anything.
MOO

 

[bearbear]

In a past life I used to transcribe police interviews for court. At no time did I ever have to type how long the interview took. There was always the initial rider at the start about the accused being able to call a solicitor at any time. When that happened, I only typed what was actually said. Might have been Dect: ... has requested a solicitor. Then the next I would type was ...returning to interview in the presence of... And that is all the courts would know. Verbatim interview.
Can anyone tell me the correct spelling of someone saying they had done a u-eh?

according to this article...uey

Meanings and origins of Australian words and idioms

slll.cass.anu.edu.au

 

[SouthAussie]

Thank you for this explanation and also all of your other opinions regarding the internal workings of the post arrest interview. Also to the other subsequent interviews as I suspect the detectives are upping their strategies to get information out of the alleged perp. and the whereabouts of SM. This I suspect is the dialogue we are not privy to on a day to day basis but is reflected in the statements coming out that the alleged perp. is still not saying anything.
MOO

It could be that the accused has lawyered up, and is not willing to be re-interviewed by the police - as is his right.

I don't think there is anything that the police can do to get near to the accused once that happens - except keep requesting interviews which can be refused, or send questions to the lawyer and get answers back from the accused, via his lawyer.

The "talk to my lawyer" approach is the safest approach for the accused.

imo

 

[BreakingNews]

It sounds strange. I cannot believe they all sat there for 30 hours and said nothing. LE didn't tell him why they knew it was him and he didn't deny any involvement. They just sat there and looked at each other. Weird. An awful lot of wasted time if they knew they were going to charge him anyway.

The law is an *advertiser censored*

 

[BreakingNews]

So if, after sitting in remand etc for all that time before you eventually get to trial, you are then found innocent do you just have to suck it up and move on. All those months of no income along with the emotional stress is to be just forgiven. It seems unfair that a person's life would be completely upended through no fault of their own. Do they receive some recompense? Not saying that PS is innocent. Your comment just got me thinking.

In qld you get diddle for time spent in remand. If sentenced, your time in remand is taken off your sentence. I know of someone in remand for over a year. When this goes to trial, probably be thrown out. This person has a house he inherited and has had no income for all the time in remand. His family has to pay all the house rates etc. All because they can't speed up cases of people in remand. But if you are charged with murder, so much more work to do eg brief of evidence

 

[BreakingNews]

Yes, he appeared to be functioning, I lived in the suburb and knew them both. Most people were hoodwinked by him before it all happened

Not everyone was hoodwinked by Baden Clay. Ask Allison's cousin and other family.