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]

Does anyone know if Police are still conducting searches for Samantha ?

In the charter of all police orgs in AU, including the Federal Police. they don't close a case until the body is accounted for. Whole departments are dedicated to the search. Some police spend their entire career at it.

Nothing more annoying to police forces all over the world than a case that is not closed, and nothing is closed until the finality of the retrieval of a missing body is resolved. Fair to say, VICPOL would have a team whose sole job is running this aspect of this murder charge , the missing body, right to the end of time.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed - RUMOURS>
Obviously we have to follow the process on the limited police information we know of.
But saying that, I hope this case is thoroughly investigated which leaves no stone unturned

 

[Trooper]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed - RUMOURS>Obviously we have to follow the process on the limited police information we know of.
But saying that, I hope this case is thoroughly investigated which leaves no stone unturned

From my point of view , VICPOL has given a huge amount of information I mean... what more can they say out of court? VICPOL has said her manner of death was murder, at a particular place at a particular time, by a particular person. Even, VICPOL said, even telling the public that she was 'attacked', and ' not a hit and run event'..These are huge gulps and buckets of info.

Everything VICPOL says has to be backed up in court under cross examination by the defence, no point in arguing a case in the newspapers, which AU 'journalism' is euphemistically called. That would defeat the purpose of bringing justice for Mick and his family. So VICPOL is not going to run their case out of court. Mrs Murphy is owed that.

If VICPOL needed any public intervention, or information it would ask, clearly and concisely. At this point, the general public can take it as given that anyone the 'newspapers' are not interviewing will be either prosecution or defence witnesses, or even be for one and testify for the other, but be barred from speaking to the press, as the press is barred from interfering with their testimony..... honestly, the info is not limited, we have a lot more info than most motiveless murders are usually provided...

 

[Scooby-Doo]

From my point of view , VICPOL has given a huge amount of information I mean... what more can they say out of court? VICPOL has said her manner of death was murder, at a particular place at a particular time, by a particular person. Even, VICPOL said, even telling the public that she was 'attacked', and ' not a hit and run event'..These are huge gulps and buckets of info.

Everything VICPOL says has to be backed up in court under cross examination by the defence, no point in arguing a case in the newspapers, which AU 'journalism' is euphemistically called. That would defeat the purpose of bringing justice for Mick and his family. So VICPOL is not going to run their case out of court. Mrs Murphy is owed that.

If VICPOL needed any public intervention, or information it would ask, clearly and concisely. At this point, the general public can take it as given that anyone the 'newspapers' are not interviewing will be either prosecution or defence witnesses, or even be for one and testify for the other, but be barred from speaking to the press, as the press is barred from interfering with their testimony..... honestly, the info is not limited, we have a lot more info than most motiveless murders are usually provided...

They could tell us everything, or they could tell us nothing, but in this case it's neither.
They are releasing carefully chosen pieces of information in a very public and selective manner.
This surely must be part of some strategy, and not just random decisions being made.

Why release as well information about Samantha's phone publicly, and not anything else leading up to it?
I find it interesting from police suddenly switched from not giving a running commentary to a very specific and detailed public display with plenty of high-fives going around, hugs in front of the media both on the ground and in the air.

And then rationalise the selective release of information to the media.
Going from public appeals for information to all of a sudden charging the accused then saying nothing for weeks, then selectively publicising one or two searches in specific locations.

 

[Trooper]

They could tell us everything, or they could tell us nothing, but in this case it's neither.
They are releasing carefully chosen pieces of information in a very public and selective manner.
This surely must be part of some strategy, and not just random decisions being made.
They are releasing carefully chosen pieces of information in a very public and selective manner.
Why release as well information about Samantha's phone publicly, and not anything else leading up to it?
I find it interesting from police suddenly switched from not giving a running commentary to a very specific and detailed public display with plenty of high-fives going around, hugs in front of the media both on the ground and in the air.

And then rationalise the selective release of information to the media.
Going from public appeals for information to all of a sudden charging the accused then saying nothing for weeks, then selectively publicising one or two searches in specific locations.

''They could tell us everything, or they could tell us nothing, but in this case it's neither.'' In this case, it is both. Up until a suspect was charged a lot of info was dispersed. After that, any info is for the court, not to be bandied about in public without defence being able to examine and dispute it. This is how the law works in AU, it has for 125 years since Federation and nothing has altered that procedure, VICPOL is not going to run a case against Stephenson outside of the court, for the publicity.

''They are releasing carefully chosen pieces of information in a very public and selective manner.' yes, they are doing exactly that for the precise reason that it suits their purpose of bringing this murder case to the Supreme Court with as much evidence and ( let me emphasise here) admissable evidence as can be packed in. Notably, Mr Stephenson's barristers are saying ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regard to his innocence or guilt. A most unusual circumstance.

''They are releasing carefully chosen pieces of information in a very public and selective manner.' yes, they do tend to do that, that's what police forces do when a Supreme Court case is coming up.


and so on....


Really, we will be told just about everything at trial. Even if, say, Stephenson pleads guilty, the judge will speak on every element of the crime and what weight he gives each element in laying down the sentence..

We may never ever know why. Nothing Stephenson says as to why should be believed, for a whole host of reasons, so it's best not to expect that particular component to be made clear. ,


For the really curious, this link.... The Queen v Bayley [2013] VSC 313 (19 June 2013) is an example of what the judge tells us about the crime when the defendant pleads guilty.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

''They could tell us everything, or they could tell us nothing, but in this case it's neither.'' In this case, it is both. Up until a suspect was charged a lot of info was dispersed. After that, any info is for the court, not to be bandied about in public without defence being able to examine and dispute it. This is how the law works in AU, it has for 125 years since Federation and nothing has altered that procedure, VICPOL is not going to run a case against Stephenson outside of the court, for the publicity.

''They are releasing carefully chosen pieces of information in a very public and selective manner.' yes, they are doing exactly that for the precise reason that it suits their purpose of bringing this murder case to the Supreme Court with as much evidence and ( let me emphasise here) admissable evidence as can be packed in. Notably, Mr Stephenson's barristers are saying ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regard to his innocence or guilt. A most unusual circumstance.

''They are releasing carefully chosen pieces of information in a very public and selective manner.' yes, they do tend to do that, that's what police forces do when a Supreme Court case is coming up.


and so on....


Really, we will be told just about everything at trial. Even if, say, Stephenson pleads guilty, the judge will speak on every element of the crime and what weight he gives each element in laying down the sentence..

We may never ever know why. Nothing Stephenson says as to why should be believed, for a whole host of reasons, so it's best not to expect that particular component to be made clear. ,

I understand how it all works and what the police have stated in the beginning is nothing new with other cases when police want info.
I am still not sold on where she was murdered at Mt Clear, and we don't know for sure (possibly unconfirmed) 5pm ping.
As more new info comes to light after all this time, we won't know what will be revealed during the court process

 

[Trooper]

I understand how it all works and what the police have stated in the beginning is nothing new with other cases when police want info.
I am still not sold on where she was murdered at Mt Clear, and we don't know for sure (possibly unconfirmed) 5pm ping.
As more new info comes to light after all this time, we won't know what will be revealed during the court process

'I am still not sold on where she was murdered at Mt Clear,'.... you don't expand on why you are 'not sold'... what possible reason would VICPOL have to name the place, only to have a snarky barrister , in public, in court, tear that position down? It does not stand to reason. perhaps you have other information on the whereabouts... the ping will be resolved , by techies on the stand..

'As more new info comes to light after all this time, we won't know what will be revealed during the court process'...but we will know , during the court process. Cross examination will expose the areas in dispute and the various events that explain the sequence of actions.

The DPP, the Prosecutor for the Crown , will lay out the Crown case, what it intends to prove, what it can show to the jury about the murder, where it took place , how she died, and who killed her. That's on day one. From that point, the gradual portrait of this hideous crime will be painted in, by both the Prosecutor, and by the defence, who's job is to steer away from the jury any association with the crime by the defendant.

 

[Melt71]

I understand how it all works and what the police have stated in the beginning is nothing new with other cases when police want info.
I am still not sold on where she was murdered at Mt Clear, and we don't know for sure (possibly unconfirmed) 5pm ping.<SBM>

And we don’t need to know. It’s not the job of police to release info just because the public are curious. Personally I’d really hate to see our legal system back-doored by a US-style trial by media.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

And we don’t need to know. It’s not the job of police to release info just because the public are curious. Personally I’d really hate to see our legal system back-doored by a US-style trial by media.

Police will only tell the media on what they want to get out

 

[Trooper]

Police will only tell the media on what they want to get out

Police will only tell the media what the Dept. of Public Prosecution gives them leave to say, and what the Court allows either the police or /and the Dept of PP to say... this is a matter of looking at things thru the right lens...It might be noticed that the only police making any statements is the Actual Police Commissioner, Shane Patton.

No one else in VICPOL has been given free reign to blither on to sections of the press, and if they did, that would be the end of their career, very smartly, too.

 

[Trooper]

If the police don't want 'something' ( we don't know what, or why,) to 'get out' it may well be something that has no business being out in the public domain.

 

[Rocket333]

Notably, Mr Stephenson's barristers are saying ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regard to his innocence or guilt. A most unusual circumstance.

What do you make of this?

 

[Rocket333]

I am still not sold on where she was murdered at Mt Clear,

I don’t understand what you mean and how it matters? Isn’t Woowookarung in Mt Clear?

 

[Trooper]

What do you make of this?

I don't know what to make of it ! It is usual for a Barrister to pose on the steps of the court, after their client has been charged to say, we defend our client to the utmost, ... while we know when it was announced that Galbally Bros would be the defenders of Stephenson,( when the phone was found ) it occurred to me that was a forced error, like in tennis. that he may have been barristered by them for some time, perhaps, with no announcement.. I just don't know! Finding the phone forced the announcement.. I have been known to stumble down rabbit holes before, and this case is full of them, so.. take it as you feel like doing, it's only my opinion!!

 

[SouthAussie]

I don't know what to make of it ! It is usual for a Barrister to pose on the steps of the court, after their client has been charged to say, we defend our client to the utmost, ... while we know when it was announced that Galbally Bros would be the defenders of Stephenson,( when the phone was found ) it occurred to me that was a forced error, like in tennis. that he may have been barristered by them for some time, perhaps, with no announcement.. I just don't know! Finding the phone forced the announcement.. I have been known to stumble down rabbit holes before, and this case is full of them, so.. take it as you feel like doing, it's only my opinion!!

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.

They still likely have more hours of CCTV to trawl through to try to find some reasonable doubt. But if the police have PS clearly and outright for Sam's murder, there just may be nothing there to assist a defence.

Borce's lawyer was pretty quiet also, in the Ristevski case. I think all he said (the day after Karen was found) is that he had been advising Borce since pretty much Day One, and it was clear that the police had Borce as their #1 suspect. Link
And we know that Borce ended up negotiating a plea deal.

 

[mrjitty]

i wouldnt make too much of lack of public statements. for all we know the police have him dead to rights and the only question is whether he’ll plead

IMO

 

[Rocket333]

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

If there were others involved would we be aware, to some degree, by now?

 

[Rocket333]

i wouldnt make too much of lack of public statements. for all we know the police have him dead to rights and the only question is whether he’ll plead

IMO

He won’t give up the body. The only plead is not guilty, but he won’t make it.

 

[SouthAussie]

If there were others involved would we be aware, to some degree, by now?

Probably depends if any other(s) were turning state's evidence or not. If they were present and not culpable in Sam's death, their privacy might be protected.

Otherwise, I would have expected charges to rain down on another(s). And we would know about it.

imo

 

[Scooby-Doo]

If there were others involved would we be aware, to some degree, by now?

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