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

[Rocket333]

I found it difficult to believe that Samantha turned her phone off. Mick said, he tried ringing her from 10am on, quite a few times, she did not answer, it was turned off, which is odd. She would not turn it off, why take a phone with you and turn the darn thing off? She would have wanted to know if there was any change in the Brunch arrangement, or any lifts to it to organise, last minute stuff..

Samantha voluntarily turning it off doesn't make sense.

So the killer probably turned it off. , seems to me to be the most likely explanation.....

Absolutely Troop. The killer turned it off. Therefore he would’ve turned his off too, but when?
The above police interview also implies they were, at that point, relying on phone data. Sam’s phone data and that it was telling them about where she travelled, how she travelled, and when her data stopped. He asked for witnesses of cars or suspicious people in the area. They suspected she was dead, removed from the area, and that there was no threat to the public. They were searching for small items in the area not previously detected.
That’s a lot of info for us to dissect and interpret from that early stage.
It made me think that at that stage they had intel on other phones in the area at the time and were honing in, but hadn’t any visuals from trail cams or videos or cctv etc.
These interviews would have had to have been targeting persons of interest surely? Make them squirm and make moves perhaps? Like return to the site to check all is clear or return to the body etc?
Maybe PS was in their sights from very early on and already under surveillance.

 

[touch]

Mick said, he tried ringing her from 10am on, quite a few times, she did not answer, it was turned off, which is odd.

You can't tell just from ringing a phone whether it's turned off or not, a phone which is off and a phone with no signal would act the same when you ring them. It's possible SM's phone had no signal at the time he called (maybe because it was in the boot of a car or something?).

Depending on the time of the quote from Mick, it's possible that the phone company were able to determine that the phone was intentionally turned off and informed him so he was then able to say that the phone didn't ring because it was turned off. Or it might just be a guess from Mick that no ring = phone turned off (and could possibly be an incorrect guess).

 

[Trooper]

You can't tell just from ringing a phone whether it's turned off or not, a phone which is off and a phone with no signal would act the same when you ring them. It's possible SM's phone had no signal at the time he called (maybe because it was in the boot of a car or something?).

Mick said, it was turned off, I wondered if he knew some reasons to say that. Maybe he meant , in his way of speaking, that the phone was not in her control, perhaps??.. I took him at his word, that the phone, he believed, was turned off.

 

[Rocket333]

It's possible SM's phone had no signal at the time he called (maybe because it was in the boot of a car or something?).

Can that happen? If so, the phone becomes active again, and pings, once out of the boot or wherever?

 

[Trooper]

Can that happen? If so, the phone becomes active again, and pings, once out of the boot or wherever?

He had her phone in his hands, it would seem.,.. probably at 8am. up until he disposed of it. the 5pm ping? Maybe he couldn't resist fiddling with it, someone elses stuff, stuff that's now his, he can do it if he wants to, then he remembers, the tech stuff, he can't undo what he did......... he flings it out the car window...??

 

[touch]

Can that happen? If so, the phone becomes active again, and pings, once out of the boot or wherever?

It's definitely possible that the phone didn't ring when Mick called it because it didn't have signal. Whether that could be caused by closing the phone in a car boot, i'm not entirely sure. By 10am there was time to have driven a long way away from populated areas so it's certainly possible it lost signal by being out of range of any phone masts.

If it did lose signal then pick it up again later, it will just continue pinging as normal.

but, as @Trooper mentioned, Mick has more information than we do and he may be correct to say that the phone was turned off.

 

[Trooper]

It's definitely possible that the phone didn't ring when Mick called it because it didn't have signal. Whether that could be caused by closing the phone in a car boot, i'm not entirely sure. By 10am there was time to have driven a long way away from populated areas so it's certainly possible it lost signal by being out of range of any phone masts.

If it did lose signal then pick it up again later, it will just continue pinging as normal.

but, as @Trooper mentioned, Mick has more information than we do and he may be correct to say that the phone was turned off.

Although, Mick Murphy did not expect her phone to be inoperative.. He seemed to believe that if he rang her number, she would answer, maybe he had rung her before on other training runs, when she was on that track. He kept on ringing , too, so he expected some result, one must assume........

 

[Kemug]

At 7.15pm it was announced that there was no threat to the public! ie there wasn't somebody running around randomly abducting and possibly killing people. How did they know that? How could they possibly have known that? If I had been in that area at that time, I don't believe I would have felt safe and reassured. Surely LE only say that when they know the who and why - so if that was a true statement, then they obviously knew a great deal already, and maybe were already tracking PS. I just don't understand it.

 

[Rocket333]

Although, Mick Murphy did not expect her phone to be inoperative.. He seemed to believe that if he rang her number, she would answer, maybe he had rung her before on other training runs, when she was on that track. He kept on ringing , too, so he expected some result, one must assume........

Both are easily true. Sam ran a busy business, a busy family and a busy social life from all accounts provided to date. Her phone was in a wallet with her most important cards. She would’ve taken it everywhere and used it constantly. She’d have it with her at all times and it would have been well charged and switched on. We all relate to that and if we don’t do similar ourselves, we know people who do the same. Phones in such wallets with cards are bulky, yet she took it with her on her run even though (as reported) she was also wearing her iwatch. Perhaps she was using her phone when she encountered PS, or her phone was ringing which caught his attention. If it was in a pocket he would’ve needed to find it and remove it.
Maybe she was videoing something and he was caught in her video which lead to a scuffle. Maybe her phone was the cause of the conflict.
I think the way the phone was discarded, intact and in a dam on the side of nearby road, is all wrong. I’m not tech savvy (he is isn’t he?) yet I would’ve smashed it immediately and scattered the millions of shards far and wide.

 

[Rocket333]

At 7.15pm it was announced that there was no threat to the public! i

Wow, the same day? Where did you get that from? That’s very telling.

 

[Kemug]

Wow, the same day? Where did you get that from? That’s very telling.

From you, dear Rocket333 - your post #319!

 

[Rocket333]

From you, dear Rocket333 - your post #319!

I thought you were about to say that!! Good grief, I’m so sorry. There was so much going on in that clip that I obviously missed very important other bits, and now I can’t find where he says that. Anyway if that’s the case, it appears like they did have PS in their sights from early on and were maybe watching him for longer than two weeks prior to his arrest. That’d be his phone initially, and then the cctv and witnesses I’d guess. How they knew it was deliberate and fatal is the big mystery.

 

[Sceptical]

He had her phone in his hands, it would seem.,.. probably at 8am. up until he disposed of it. the 5pm ping? Maybe he couldn't resist fiddling with it, someone elses stuff, stuff that's now his, he can do it if he wants to, then he remembers, the tech stuff, he can't undo what he did......... he flings it out the car window...??

When Police were conducting a search around Mac’s Road / Buninyong Golf Club (in the early days), one of the officers reportedly told one of the residents (whose property the search was bordering on) that her phone was switched on (and off again) at 3 and 5.

Am or pm? Not sure. True or not? Not sure. The resident themselves shared this on another platform, but who knows how accurate it is… (Does that mean I can’t share it here? )

But that was one piece of information that has stuck with me and led me to believe SM has been filming or had something on her phone that the perpetrator wanted to access/remove.

 

[mrjitty]

I found it difficult to believe that Samantha turned her phone off. Mick said, he tried ringing her from 10am on, quite a few times, she did not answer, it was turned off, which is odd. She would not turn it off, why take a phone with you and turn the darn thing off? She would have wanted to know if there was any change in the Brunch arrangement, or any lifts to it to organise, last minute stuff..

Samantha voluntarily turning it off doesn't make sense.

So the killer probably turned it off. , seems to me to be the most likely explanation.....

Agreed. Which is why I am willing to wager that the perp will also have turned his phone off sometime shortly before he struck

 

[FromGermany1]

Can that happen? If so, the phone becomes active again, and pings, once out of the boot or wherever?

If it pinged at 5pm again, would it not have received all the calls from Mike, which he did in the morning (as a notice "missed call")?

 

[Rocket333]

If it pinged at 5pm again, would it not have received all the calls from Mike, which he did in the morning (as a notice "missed call")?

Surely it would’ve if connected. One ping, lots of pings, no pings - we have no idea.

 

[Trooper]

Surely it would’ve if connected. One ping, lots of pings, no pings - we have no idea.

And we don't know if Mick was the only one who rang her that morning, and could not connect. Someone else may have, a Brunch Lady, a School person, some work related stuff, someone who thought of something urgent Sunday morning, and who does not know someone who does that? PS is busy at his crime, and the wretched phone pings and he automatically flicks it, dang, it's not his phone, it's hers, and he disconnects it... But , it registered. ...

 

[Rocket333]

Saying there is no risk to the public when someone has been murdered by a stranger in a public space. What would you call it? It is not withholding. At this stage they had no idea what happened to her. Are you claiming that they had the suspect under surveillance on day 1?

Yes, that’s the logical inference.

 

[Trooper]

Saying there is no risk to the public when someone has been murdered by a stranger in a public space. What would you call it? It is not withholding. At this stage they had no idea what happened to her. Are you claiming that they had the suspect under surveillance on day 1?

How do you know they had no idea? I mean, it's possible they had every idea. That is not at all improbable. Entirely possible. VICPOL isn't in the business of putting the public at risk unnecessarily, and like the claim they made that she was murdered, by him, at Mt Clear, at 8am, it's a huge claim, right up there with the big claim stuff, but this case is full of those big claims.

 

[Trooper]

Yes, that’s the logical inference.

Certainly a huge 180 degree difference from when Denehy was killing women in Frankston, VICPOL was straight onto warning the public about lone women travelling anywhere, even in the daylight....