If they have him 'attacking' Mrs Murphy, in a premeditated fashion, at a certain time before the phone is at the dam,and she , as a result of that attack, is deceased, then he would be held to be in possession of the phone unless he designates someone else to whom he gave the phone to.It doesn't prove intent.
It proves nothing unless police can connect the offender with the phone or the dam. If anything, finding the phone without finding Samantha opens up more possibilities, including one where the phone was disposed of by someone other than the accused.
I don't know if you mean intent to murder Mrs Murphy, or intent to dispose of the phone. Once he has murdered Mrs Murphy, her possessions are regarded as under his auspices, unless he claims to have left them there at the murder site, and they were picked up by an anonymous stranger or he gave them to someone else, who then disposed of them.
Either way. it's pretty certain that Samantha did not throw her phone in the dam. Someone did. Someone who knew the owner of the phone would not be needing it anymore, or did not want to be associated with the phone.
Attacking Mrs Murphy is all the intent VICPOL needs to hang a charge of murder on him. Premeditation can be measured in seconds, it does not require a written and submitted thesis. Just lunging at her would be classified as premeditation, and intent, in criminal law. ..
Last edited: