Australia Samantha Murphy, 51, last seen leaving her property to go for a run in the Canadian State Forest, Ballarat, 4 Feb 2024 *Arrest* #11

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Scooby-Doo said:
Why didn't they show a full photo of her pants and what type of running shoes she was wearing, as that is important, especially If someone finds one in the forest
Click to expand...
Describing the pants as black leggings was probably considered enough.

The type of shoes she was wearing might be hold back information. Also given the amount of publicity this case has had, it's highly likely that if anyone found womens shoes in the forest they would alert the police.
 
drsleuth said:
Why do they need to release any others?

They've shown what she was wearing, shows a very clear front on photo of her face.

I've not seen conflicting reports at all, far from it IMO
Click to expand...
You would release a photo of her about to go for a run, a very recent one. The photo of Samantha holding a doggie bag, doesn't look to be her about to go for a run, she is wearing her apple smartwatch.
But another news outlet on Sky News is saying they aren't sure she was wearing her watch, so that photo doesn't look recent, as her watch is in the photo, also there is no time and date stamped from her security camera, that could be an old photo, like the other ones released to the media. To me, it's a bit odd.
 
Lemony said:
Describing the pants as black leggings was probably considered enough.

The type of shoes she was wearing might be hold back information. Also given the amount of publicity this case has had, it's highly likely that if anyone found womens shoes in the forest they would alert the police.
Click to expand...
Sorry, doesn't sit right. Why tell the media this was Samantha about to go for her run in the photo, and she is wearing her watch, but Skynews reporting they are not sure whether she was wearing her watch ?
 
drsleuth said:
I think any shoes found would have been reported. Looks to me she had black runners on.
Click to expand...
There is no photo of the colour and brand of shoes and to me, she looks like she's wearing black slacks, not short black tights. I don't think Samantha was going for a run in this photo and for whatever reason, police I feel have deliberately used this main photo because it's not specific in showing her pants and if she was wearing running shoes
 
Scooby-Doo said:
But another news outlet on Sky News is saying they aren't sure she was wearing her watch, so that photo doesn't look recent, as her watch is in the photo, also there is no time and date stamped from her security camera, that could be an old photo, like the other ones released to the media. To me, it's a bit odd.
Click to expand...

Could you please post the links for what you are speaking of? On WS we need to back up our statements with links. Thank you.
 
Here is a Sky article that clearly states she was wearing a watch


Feb 9th 2014

Ms Murphy was wearing a watch and carrying her phone at the time she disappeared, with police previously confirming the device pinged near the Buninyong Golf Course about 14km from her home. Telecommunications technicians have been engaged by police
 
Scooby-Doo said:
Sorry, doesn't sit right. Why tell the media this was Samantha about to go for her run in the photo, and she is wearing her watch, but Skynews reporting they are not sure whether she was wearing her watch ?
Click to expand...
Media don't always report details accurately. I would go as far as to say they often get details wrong, some outlets more than others IMO.
 
Scooby-Doo said:
Click to expand...

Thank you. It is an article from 4 days after Sam disappeared. We now know that the police tracked Sam's phone through the forest to Mt Clear. And we know that Sam is still missing, and that PS has been arrested for her murder after he allegedly deliberately attacked her.

A lot has happened since then.

www.dailymail.co.uk

How cops closed in on missing mum's alleged killer two weeks ago

No trace of the mother-of-three has been found and a 22-year-old man from the nearby suburb of Scotsburn was on Thursday charged with her alleged murder.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
drsleuth said:
Here is a Sky article that clearly states she was wearing a watch


Feb 9th 2014

Ms Murphy was wearing a watch and carrying her phone at the time she disappeared, with police previously confirming the device pinged near the Buninyong Golf Course about 14km from her home. Telecommunications technicians have been engaged by police
Click to expand...
There are different reports. But personally, I don't think that is a recent photo of Sam going for a run. I don't think she was about to go for a run, either.
But we will have to wait until everything is revealed in court
 
Scooby-Doo said:
There are different reports. But personally, I don't think that is a recent photo of Sam going for a run. I don't think she was about to go for a run, either.
But we will have to wait until everything is revealed in court
Click to expand...

So you think that the police have it all wrong? Even though they have the evidence and the prosecution has proceeded with a murder charge against PS?

Because I am pretty sure that is what is going to be revealed in court. The evidence against PS.
 
SouthAussie said:
So you think that the police have it all wrong? Even though they have the evidence and the prosecution has proceeded with a murder charge against PS?

Because I am pretty sure that is what is going to be revealed in court. The evidence against PS
Click to expand...
Police can believe whatever they believe, and say whatever they choose to say. Whether it was a deliberate act (or anything else) needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
What actually happened has nothing to do with what anyone says, or believes, or even what is found in court. They are all separate and distinct things.
I feel there is more to this, and he's had help
 
Last edited:
Scooby-Doo said:
I think he killed her, but maybe he's had help
The whole thing is intriguing, and the police have their way of investigating and keeping everything quiet
Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't think they can keep an additional murder charge against someone else, or an accessory charge against someone else, quiet. I think that would be a public record, wouldn't it?

imo
 
SouthAussie said:
Yes, but I don't think they can keep an additional murder charge against someone else, or an accessory charge against someone else, quiet. I think that would be a public record, wouldn't it?

imo
Click to expand...
We don't know if others are being watched. But there is a long way to go with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 70 more.
Total: 3,127 (members: 71, guests: 3,056)

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
3,056
Total visitors
3,127
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,446
Messages
18,156,746
Members
231,734
Latest member
Ava l
Back
Top