Few questions for anyone here.
Guesses on where all this cctv footage may be coming from?
Was his vehicle actually damaged after the media releases looking for a damaged vehicle?
Did he get his damaged car fixed or professionally cleaned somewhere?
What do you believe happened between the alleged altercation and the 5pm ping?
Do you speculate that more than 1 party is involved at some time or another?
1) Guesses on where all this cctv footage may be coming from?
Footage of the actual alleged murder: I'm guessing footage from Samantha's phone or hidden bush cameras. I don't think the accused was stupid enough to film the attack, nor do I think he was with anyone else who might have. I could be mistaken, because young people these days do stupid things for likes and fame, so..... If we're talking about footage after the attack, from around the area, then I imagine it would come from private homes, businesses, roadways, schools etc. Just because there's an "unprecedented" amount of CCTV footage, it does not mean it shows the accused. It might be to prove he didn't go somewhere, or that he was captured later that day in other locations, alone or with family/friends perhaps, to set up a time line of what occurred the entire day, or days afterwards, or even the earlier hours of that morning.
2) Was his vehicle actually damaged after the media releases looking for a damaged vehicle?
Not sure about this. Was it carefully worded by police because the car was in fact damaged? Or was it just a throwaway line? If it was in fact damaged, was it existing damage not inflicted that day? If there was damage caused during the attack, what caused this? Can you hit a person with your car enough to severely injure them, without there being blood or other evidence left behind? I'm assuming so. The damage may have been caused by fleeing, but as far as we know, there's been nothing found to indicate evidence at the scene that something untoward happened. Could it have been damaged in the days after, when he wasn't thinking straight?
3) Did he get his damaged car fixed or professionally cleaned somewhere?
If in fact his vehicle was damaged before, during or after, you'd have to know his state of mind as to whether he got it fixed, and where. I believe that line about a damaged car or property was spoken about 3 weeks after her disappearance. He was apparently on the radar of police by then, as I think he became a suspect about 2 weeks after, then the comment was made 3 weeks after, and he was arrested about 4 weeks after. He obviously didn't know he was being watched/recorded/whatever, but when that comment came up, it may have changed things in his mind. If he did have damage, that may have prompted action so as not to draw attention to his vehicle. It would have been stupid to get it fixed locally after that comment (though he may very well have done so) so I'd think he'd go further afield. Perhaps he had a panel beater or mechanic mate? Again, as far as cleaning the car goes, if he felt confident he'd never be found out then he may well have got it professionally cleaned locally. Perhaps he tried himself, just hoping to have it clean enough that family and friends didn't notice a smell or stains. He possibly never thought he'd be caught and wasn't concerned about DNA.
4) What do you believe happened between the alleged altercation and the 5pm ping?
I feel that after the 8am attack, the accused drove further afield and disposed of Samantha. Right afterwards, as keeping her close to the site of the attack was risky, as was keeping her in his vehicle, especially on such a hot day. In that scenario, he either kept her phone for whatever reason, forgot to dump it with her, or wanted to dispose of it away from her in case it could be traced back to its location. I'd really love to know the timeline of the accused's movements on that day, I guess I'll just have to hope it comes up at trial. If we knew he had commitments or expectations, then it would be easier to speculate. I would guess that after he disposed of her he went about his day. Perhaps creating "alibis" as such, being seen by people who would vouch for him. I can't really account for the 5pm ping. I know a lot has been said about what phones can and can't do when they're off, underwater, in metal boxes etc but I haven't really kept up. Perhaps right after the attack he turned it off and placed it in a metal toolbox in his ute that I believe would block it from emitting pings (I paid enough attention to know something like that has been mentioned) and then took it out around 5pm to dispose of. I personally think he disposed of it in the dam himself, probably around the time of that last ping. Maybe on his way to or from somewhere else, and not necessarily on the most direct route.
5) Do you speculate that more than 1 party is involved at some time or another?
I think he acted alone, and mostly kept it to himself. I feel he may have hinted at things, almost like he wanted to boast about it but knew better. Certain people may have had concerns or beliefs, or put two and two together. There may have been people that inadvertently helped along the way without necessarily knowing. I feel that if there was another party, then they would have been questioned and released/arrested by now, and it would have made the news.
