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

[touch]

But he was not too high to stop, get out of the car, pick her up, load her into the car, take her somewhere and bury her without detection,

Amazing as well to remove all forensic evidence from inside and outside and to return home without incident, seeing nobody and telling nobody what happened.

We don't actually know any of these details are true.
It's still possible that the body is buried or hidden in an old mine nearby and was never moved in a vehicle.
We also don't know that no forensic evidence was found. Just because police did not inform the public doesn't mean nothing was found.

I suspect you're probably correct, and I'm of the same opinion to you, but these are assumptions we're making and not verified facts.

 

[Lucy6226]

Wait and see

It could be simple or could be more complicated.

<modsnip: Speculative theories or opinions that are not based on some known fact are not allowed>

Plenty of people have been found guilty of murder without a body and with motive unknown. Remember we don't know what evidence they have yet, they clearly had enough to charge him.

 

[Bats]

Wait and see

It could be simple or could be more complicated.

<modsnip: Speculative theories or opinions that are not based on some known fact are not allowed>

Yes, I'm with you there. We need to see how it unfolds.

P.S. Apologies, I deleted my post as I felt i was being a bit direct. I totally respect your position and didn't want to cause any angst.

 

[Rocket333]

Plenty of people have been found guilty of murder without a body and with motive unknown. Remember we don't know what evidence they have yet, they clearly had enough to charge him.

There was about 30 hours between the arrest and being charged (IIRC) and searches of a car and house/s occurred in that time. Did they already have enough, or did the searches seal the deal.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Plenty of people have been found guilty of murder without a body and with motive unknown. Remember we don't know what evidence they have yet, they clearly had enough to charge him.

Police can believe whatever they believe, and say whatever they choose to say. Whether it was a deliberate act (or anything else) but it 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. Without a motive, you cannot prove intent or deliberation, and without intent it's not murder.

 

[mrjitty]

Without a motive, you cannot prove intent or deliberation, and without intent it's not murder.

RSBM

This is not correct. Motive does not have to be proven.

Intent is generally inferred from circumstantial evidence. For instance if a blood stained knife is found at the defendant's house, and DNA tests reveal the blood to be that of the victim, and the victim has mysteriously disappeared, a jury can easily infer that the defendant has intentionally stabbed the victim to death.

Nothing more is required.

MOO

 

[Trooper]

RSBM

This is not correct. Motive does not have to be proven.

Intent is generally inferred from circumstantial evidence. For instance if a blood stained knife is found at the defendant's house, and DNA tests reveal the blood to be that of the victim, and the victim has mysteriously disappeared, a jury can easily infer that the defendant has intentionally stabbed the victim to death.

Nothing more is required.

MOO

I totally agree it is not correct, but only is that not correct, the Prosecutor will not even bring up the subject of motive. There is no motive. She didn't know him, he didn't know her . They were strangers to each other. There is no known link between them, nothing to create or nurture a motive, any sort of motive.

Any motive, that is, that has legal mitigating effects. The motive he had to kill her was what any murderer has, up until she died, she was a witness to his attack on her. Attack being what VICPOL said they have evidence of.

The DPP does not have to bring a motive of the killer to court. It is up to the defence to find some rational explanation (motive) for their client. They do this in the hope of convincing the judge to factor in something that might reduce the eventual sentence. Motive has nought to do with police. Or the DPP. A clear motive assists in detection, but no known motive does not hamper detection of a crime.

That is what the police Commander said. She was 'attacked' and it was not a hit and run accident.

Murder without motive, that is, motive that anyone other than the accused understands, makes up a lot of murders, particularly those of women, by men. Even killers rarely understand their own motive, except it seemed a good idea at the time. Not so much when in court.

No one else , at all, has even hinted at a third person, or fourth person. and so on. Not the police, not the DPP, not an newspaper, or TV channel, and most importantly not at any stage his legal representative, which, if there was such a creature, that's the first , second and third thing his defence would be shouting from the steps of the court.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Clearly early on the investigation the police had enough evidence to arrest - but then as others have alluded to, more evidence has likely come to light during the 30 hours of questioning to then be able to lay a charge of murder. I for one do not believe other parties are involved. I was hoping last week we may have been given information via the police hand up brief as to what has allegedly occurred, but it was also made clear by the police that further information had been added to the brief by way of expert statements from a data specialist. Maybe Sam’s phone has yielded info. We won’t know till it all comes out. While we all have our theories and the presumption of innocence must remain for time being, I just cannot for the life of me believe the police don’t have a solid case. They’ve given very little away on the investigation, that’s their prerogative they’ve kept allot close to their chest. I still firmly believe Mr Stephenson has backed himself into a corner.

 

[Melt71]

Thank you @Trooper and @HoneyBunOne.

That really does seem so odd that his family would leave like that.

Why would they do that? Did they tip him to LE and perhaps they fear him being released/bonded? Or fear retribution from his "friends" or associates? Are they too upset about the upheaval/losing face in their community? Are they continually being harassed by media, internet sleuths, TikTokkers, etc.? It just seems like such odd action to take.

Not odd at all. Please try to put yourself in their shoes. Innocent people of both the accused and victims families are tracked by media, their homes intruded upon, followed when they drive their car, people lie in wait outside their workplaces. The whispers and comments out in the community are not always hidden or quiet and then there's the blame game - people throwing lots of mud at innocent family members in the hope some will stick. There aren't many places to retreat to in many smaller communities. I was lucky to be living overseas at the time when an event happened in our family, but it was horrific to watch. I would absolutely recommend people move far away, and move fast, to protect their own mental health.

I imagine the family can support the detainee just as well from far away as they can from their normal home.

 

[Rocket333]

but it was also made clear by the police that further information had been added to the brief by way of expert statements from a data specialist.

Ron can you elaborate on this a little more as I must have missed it. Thanks

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Ron can elaborate on that more as I must have missed it. Thanks

Sure Rocket it was mentioned in the hearing last week and was in the press.. can’t remember where I saw it but it was mentioned.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Sure Rocket it was mentioned in the hearing last week and was in the press.. can’t remember where I saw it but it was mentioned.

Link Rocket - Dramatic moment Samantha Murphy's husband stares down accused killer

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Ron can elaborate on this a little more as I must have missed it. Thanks

I have read everything, but haven't seen this

 

[Ron Jeremy]

I have read everything, but haven't seen this

Scooby I just posted the link above - it mentions three new witness statements obtained by Prosecutors and the one from a digital forensic specialist.

 

[Rocket333]

Sure Rocket it was mentioned in the hearing last week and was in the press.. can’t remember where I saw it but it was mentioned.

Maybe this?

“Dressed in white, Stephenson heard three new statements had been obtained by detectives since he last fronted court.

One of those witnesses was named as Doctor Matthew Sorrell, an expert in digital forensic science.”

Dramatic moment Samantha Murphy's husband stares down accused killer

The heartbroken husband of missing Ballarat mum Samantha Murphy has stared down her alleged killer for the first time in court.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Maybe this?

“Dressed in white, Stephenson heard three new statements had been obtained by detectives since he last fronted court.

One of those witnesses was named as Doctor Matthew Sorrell, an expert in digital forensic science.”

Dramatic moment Samantha Murphy's husband stares down accused killer

The heartbroken husband of missing Ballarat mum Samantha Murphy has stared down her alleged killer for the first time in court.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Yep that’s it… I’d say they are lining their ducks up in a pretty nice row!

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Link Rocket - Dramatic moment Samantha Murphy's husband stares down accused killer

We don't know what was said, he was a witness. There is no more elaboration

 

[Scooby-Doo]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>



There is no mention of statements, only he was a witness to the case. Maybe read it a bit better


One of those witnesses was named as Doctor Matthew Sorrell, an expert in digital forensic science.

With the matter now headed directly to the Supreme Court of Victoria, the public will be all but shutout of how police put their case against Stephenson until the jury trial gets underway.

Dramatic moment Samantha Murphy's husband stares down accused killer

The heartbroken husband of missing Ballarat mum Samantha Murphy has stared down her alleged killer for the first time in court.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Rocket333]

Yep that’s it… I’d say they are lining their ducks up in a pretty nice row!

How interesting!

Dr Matthew Sorrell is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Adelaide, specialising in digital forensic science. His research focuses on justice through the application of forensic science in the digital domain, particularly health data as a source of evidence in criminal investigations.

Dr Matthew Sorell | Researcher Profiles

researchers.adelaide.edu.au

 

[Trooper]

Matthew Sorell

Matthew Sorell — Profile on The Conversation

theconversation.com

This would be the esteemed Doctor...