Australia Samantha Murphy, 51, last seen leaving her property to go for a run in the Canadian State Forest, Ballarat, 4 Feb 2024 *Arrest* #12

[Trooper]

Not necessary so, especially If others are being watched or involved in other crimes that could be under surveillance as well.
Police might suspect others, but they need the proof, more might be revealed at the committal hearing, but the details may not be revealed until the actual trial.

He may not have been the only person who came up in this analysis, and police may have been working on other 'more likely' leads. If there is more to this, the police certainly wouldn't be rushing, and we won't be told a thing

We still don't know if the accused has thrown Samantha's phone into the dam, that could have been someone else

There is another reason why we have not been told if anyone else came up on this analysis, and that is because no one else did come up on it. Applying Occams Razor , here, that is a reasonable explanation. 'We' don't know about who threw the phone, because VICPOL maybe does not know for the purposes of prosecutorial evidence. We do know that Samantha did not throw it. It is therefore rational to assume that either her killer threw it, or he gave it to someone who threw it and that will eventually iron itself out , one way or the other.

Again, 'we' can't be told, because VICPOL is bound by the laws of Victoria and under the auspices of the Supreme Court of Victoria to Not Publicise Elements of a Murder to the General Public, which is you and me. You and I might be safe with info but a lot of people are not, and therefore, VICPOL and every other police org in AU is not permitted to try cases they are prosecuting In The Press. I don't know how to make it any plainer than this, really..

 

[Scooby-Doo]

There is another reason why we have not been told if anyone else came up on this analysis, and that is because no one else did come up on it. Applying Occams Razor , here, that is a reasonable explanation. 'We' don't know about who threw the phone, because VICPOL maybe does not know for the purposes of prosecutorial evidence. We do know that Samantha did not throw it. It is therefore rational to assume that either her killer threw it, or he gave it to someone who threw it and that will eventually iron itself out , one way or the other.

Again, 'we' can't be told, because VICPOL is bound by the laws of Victoria and under the auspices of the Supreme Court of Victoria to Not Publicise Elements of a Murder to the General Public, which is you and me. You and I might be safe with info but a lot of people are not, and therefore, VICPOL and every other police org in AU is not permitted to try cases they are prosecuting In The Press. I don't know how to make it any plainer than this, really..

We won't know the facts until trial and yes we know about the media, we're just going around in circles

 

[mrjitty]

There is another reason why we have not been told if anyone else came up on this analysis, and that is because no one else did come up on it. Applying Occams Razor , here, that is a reasonable explanation. 'We' don't know about who threw the phone, because VICPOL maybe does not know for the purposes of prosecutorial evidence. We do know that Samantha did not throw it. It is therefore rational to assume that either her killer threw it, or he gave it to someone who threw it and that will eventually iron itself out , one way or the other.

Again, 'we' can't be told, because VICPOL is bound by the laws of Victoria and under the auspices of the Supreme Court of Victoria to Not Publicise Elements of a Murder to the General Public, which is you and me. You and I might be safe with info but a lot of people are not, and therefore, VICPOL and every other police org in AU is not permitted to try cases they are prosecuting In The Press. I don't know how to make it any plainer than this, really..

Based on what we do know, i think this is a fairly typical case.

Obviously it is rare for a women to be abducted and murdered by a stranger in this way, but when it does happen, it tends to look exactly like this.

 

[Rocket333]

Obviously it is rare for a women to be abducted and murdered by a stranger in this way, but when it does happen, it tends to look exactly like this.

How could PS allow himself to be caught out so easily? If this was a well thought out plan or fantasy of his, and he knows the area extremely well, and is the son/apprentice of a telecommunications tech, how did he allow himself to be so visible and easily detected?

 

[Dotta]

How could PS allow himself to be caught out so easily? If this was a well thought out plan or fantasy of his, and he knows the area extremely well, and is the son/apprentice of a telecommunications tech, how did he allow himself to be so visible and easily detected?

My answer is simple.

Allegedly
it was a crime of OPPORTUNITY
by an intoxicated perp.

No premeditation.
Just random encounter.
And sudden folly of inebriated mind.
Having no boundaries.

Speculation on my part!

JMO

 

[Trooper]

How could PS allow himself to be caught out so easily? If this was a well thought out plan or fantasy of his, and he knows the area extremely well, and is the son/apprentice of a telecommunications tech, how did he allow himself to be so visible and easily detected?

He made a fundamental error. He is not perfect, this may have been his first attempt at subduing a woman, he is not particularly bright, He got caught up in the vibe of the thing and forgot some elemental action , and blammo, there he is, in hi vis colour and sound, murdering a woman , a stranger to him, in broad daylight on a hot Sunday morning, close to her home and his, ( a big error, that one ) with the screech of magpies carrolling away in the background.

All done stone cold sober and calculated. No hesitation. Probably rehearsed for some time. He and his girlfriend travelled around a lot, up to the Riverina, to Bali, etc, he could have murdered someone on Bali, or Dubbo, but no. Right on his own doorstep.

His hiding the body, in rapid time, done with a clear head and forethought, obviously, his deceptive performance after the murder, his complete fooling of his family, friends, neighbors, for at least 3 weeks , while an entire State searched and searched, in the blazing fire studded heat, must have been immensely satisfying, and confidence building, Because of this hiatus , this cooling off period, this gathering of himself, I can only imagine the fright he got when they did knock on the door. 'We'd like you to come down to the station and helo us in our enquiries'.. I doubt that he ever considered that scenario.

 

[SouthAussie]

I have to wonder if the attack wasn't a little of both. Planned and opportunistic.

As in, he had been fantasizing for a while about this type of crime. Because I wonder if the attack on Sissy by an unknown was a precursor. Whoever did that got away with it, undetected.

And since then he had thought "I can do this and that, and dump her (the random victim) there".

Then, for a reason known only to him, Sunday 4th Feb was the day (maybe had a chance to have a few hours alone, maybe jacked up enough to give it a whirl) ... and Samantha was the opportunistic victim.

imo

 

[Dotta]

I have to wonder if the attack wasn't a little of both. Planned and opportunistic.

As in, he had been fantasizing for a while about this type of crime. Because I wonder if the attack on Sissy by an unknown was a precursor. Whoever did that got away with it, undetected.

And since then he had thought "I can do this and that, and dump her (the random victim) there".

Then, for a reason known only to him, Sunday 4th Feb was the day (maybe had a chance to have a few hours alone, maybe jacked up enough to give it a whirl) ... and Samantha was the opportunistic victim.

imo

Was the attack on Sissy of sexual nature?
I don't remember reading it.

And didn't she see her attacker?
Even for a second?

I think she would recognize her attacker.

I don't think these 2 cases are related.

JMO

 

[SouthAussie]

Was the attack on Sissy of sexual nature?
I don't remember reading it.

And didn't she see her attacker?
Even for a second?

I think she would recognize her attacker.

I don't think these 2 cases are related.

JMO

My only thought is that people, generally, escalate their crimes. If they get away with this, they might try that, and if they get away with that, they might go even further.

imo

 

[Trooper]

My only thought is that people, generally, escalate their crimes. If they get away with this, they might try that, and if they get away with that, they might go even further.

imo

If we put Sissy's experience aside, just for context, ( because we don't know if it is related , at this point ) it is pretty clear that his behaviour was escalating, into dangerous realms, the public drug taking, drunk driving, the accident on the motor cycle, etc. all in the past year, before Mrs Murphy's murder. Some of these things , he got away with, but some, he definitely did not and was awaiting some adjudication on those matters, and it did not halt the escalation.. He ramped up. As you put it, SA, he went further. He really could not go much further.

I don't think that criminal behaviour can be confined to one aspect, of dysfunctional action eg, attacking women, and that's all. He was on some sort of downward tangent , on an escalating scale.. He certainly tried this, and then .... that... for sure.

 

[australianwebsleuth]

Was the attack on Sissy of sexual nature?
I don't remember reading it.

And didn't she see her attacker?
Even for a second?

I think she would recognize her attacker.

I don't think these 2 cases are related.

JMO

Not sexual. She was knocked out fairly promptly. Got a momentary glimpse only. Not sure the description is reliable. Caucasion guy with no shirt.

First Nations advocate hit with 'rock tied to the end of the stick' in weekend run attack

 

[mrjitty]

He made a fundamental error. He is not perfect, this may have been his first attempt at subduing a woman, he is not particularly bright, He got caught up in the vibe of the thing and forgot some elemental action , and blammo, there he is, in hi vis colour and sound, murdering a woman , a stranger to him, in broad daylight on a hot Sunday morning, close to her home and his, ( a big error, that one ) with the screech of magpies carrolling away in the background.

All done stone cold sober and calculated. No hesitation. Probably rehearsed for some time. He and his girlfriend travelled around a lot, up to the Riverina, to Bali, etc, he could have murdered someone on Bali, or Dubbo, but no. Right on his own doorstep.

His hiding the body, in rapid time, done with a clear head and forethought, obviously, his deceptive performance after the murder, his complete fooling of his family, friends, neighbors, for at least 3 weeks , while an entire State searched and searched, in the blazing fire studded heat, must have been immensely satisfying, and confidence building, Because of this hiatus , this cooling off period, this gathering of himself, I can only imagine the fright he got when they did knock on the door. 'We'd like you to come down to the station and helo us in our enquiries'.. I doubt that he ever considered that scenario.

Another thing is, murder is hard, and you don't get to practice. The state will devote a lot of resources to resolution (unlike other sexually motivated offences like rape), and that is why most get caught before they can become proficient.

This kind of case is a bit more difficult like you say, because he seemingly attacked someone he did not know. But he did make mistakes in that it is too local to him. Then the digital evidence. And no doubt other stuff we don't know about yet.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

I think that he probably hasn't decided on a defence yet.

As in, does he quietly try for a plea deal - because the evidence he has seen is irrefutable.
Or is he looking and looking for some way to introduce reasonable doubt - so they can claim that PS is Not Guilty.

Bingo! I totally agree with your thinking on this. Looking out for #1 and thinking how he can best attempt to get away with this. (If he is indeed guilty, of course)

All done stone cold sober and calculated. No hesitation. Probably rehearsed for some time. He and his girlfriend travelled around a lot, up to the Riverina, to Bali, etc, he could have murdered someone on Bali, or Dubbo, but no. Right on his own doorstep.

I don't necessarily agree with any of your hypotheses.

Your own doorstep gives a degree of control - you're aware of traffic patterns, movement of locals, any local events taking place, terrain, back roads, CCTV etc. He'd be insane to murder someone in Bali, or in a place where he's in close proximity to his girlfriend or mates for long periods of time, like you tend to be on holiday. Plus, you've obviously got the element of uncertainty about the terrain, roads, locals etc.

All MOO of course.

 

[Rocket333]

As a relevant aside, watch the Netflix doco, “Into the Fire: The Lost Daughter” if you can. Trailer below.

 

[Rocket333]

Your own doorstep gives a degree of control - you're aware of traffic patterns, movement of locals, any local events taking place, terrain, back roads, CCTV etc.

Nevertheless, it seems that his awareness of the cctv hasn’t helped him one bit.

 

[Rocket333]

Your own doorstep gives a degree of control - you're aware of traffic patterns, movement of locals, any local events taking place, terrain, back roads, CCTV etc.

Any local knowledge he had of cctv hasn’t helped him one bit. His car would be so obvious which makes you wonder what he was thinking by using it if he did. Perhaps he was originally on foot or bike (easier to evade detection), but had to retrieve his car after the incident.

 

[Dotta]

Any local knowledge he had of cctv hasn’t helped him one bit. His car would be so obvious which makes you wonder what he was thinking by using it if he did.

He was not thinking, that's the problem.

JMO

 

[australianwebsleuth]

He was not thinking, that's the problem.

JMO

I too suspect he was seriously intoxicated. Drug and booze fuelled. Reduced the inhibitions. I don't profess to understand the mind of a psychopath. Anyone who would kill a random stranger like this is likely to be a psychopath.

It will be interesting to know how he was caught. Early on the police said there was no CCTV. I have previously talked about being found using apple 'find my phone' technology and whether his iPhone was responsible for identifying SM phone. Could the CCTV be of him with SM phone? On the other hand given they have said it is a deliberate murder suggests that they have direct footage of the incident. There could be a direct witness, but this would have to be disclosed to his defence team.

 

[australianwebsleuth]

Any local knowledge he had of cctv hasn’t helped him one bit. His car would be so obvious which makes you wonder what he was thinking by using it if he did. Perhaps he was originally on foot or bike (easier to evade detection), but had to retrieve his car after the incident.

He would also have to retrieve the body.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

Nevertheless, it seems that his awareness of the cctv hasn’t helped him one bit.

Any local knowledge he had of cctv hasn’t helped him one bit. His car would be so obvious which makes you wonder what he was thinking by using it if he did. Perhaps he was originally on foot or bike (easier to evade detection), but had to retrieve his car after the incident.

I agree that his knowledge of the area obviously didn't help him get away with murder, but it may have just been a sloppy mistake or that he was unaware of X, Y or Z. We do have to remember that he has at least succeeded in hiding her body. As far as I know, we aren't certain that it was actually CCTV footage that caught him out. I still maintain that having knowledge of the area would be helpful, if indeed this was planned in advance, prior to the seconds or minutes after the meeting of the two that morning.
All my opinions only