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]

So I guess if he has parted with his defence barrister, those files all go back to the prosecutor? Or do they go into PS' safe-keeping hands? Or even to his solicitor, if he still has one of those.

But there is a reciprocal element going on here, that Stephenson has fallen over on. He has to give NOTICE OF ALIBI, which he should have done yesterday, which goes to the police, to VICPOL . on the grounds of Full Disclosure.. Stephenson just can't get on the stand and bring up his alibi cold.

His Barrister ( should he have one) makes an opening statement, just like the Prosecutor does, and he has to bring up this alibi at that opening statement, he can't just bring up this alibi cold, either... VICPOL is entitled to know about it, I would guess to check it out thoroughly... It's not all a one way trip,...

VICPOL has to give stuff to the defence, the defence has to give stuff to the prosecutor.. .

 

[Ron Jeremy]

True, and then there’s the witness accounts of movements on the day, ie “He stayed out all night and came home in his ute at 8.30am, then took off again at 4pm” etc.

This is why he is having issues with alibi. In my opinion the police and other specialist professionals in data analysis have done an outstanding job in piecing the information they have from meta data, photos, cctv, public/witness statements together. I don’t believe others are involved as we would know by now. Between 7am and 7pm there are gaps he can’t provide a meaningful or logical explanarion for, Samantha’s phone pinging at 3pm and 5pm in the Buninyong area the day she disappeared springs to mind. PS is the Salmon that has jumped on the hook! Given his background he’s tech savvy, but in life when you have to rely on the human element that’s when failure occurs.

Question for Trooper - is it possible that the police could withhold various aspects of their evidence and hit PS with it between the eyes during a hearing, or would all the evidence ( they’ve got so far ) be in the hands of the defence?

 

[Trooper]

What Stephenson did was get a bit ahead of himself, he should have submitted his Notice of Alibi, then at that hearing,, for the Notice, make his plea. Yesterday was bundled into his traffic offences, ......but here we are ,, the good ship of justice often hits heavy weather, but it plows on.

The more this thing goes on the more I am convinced that this whole event is going to be taking place in Ballarat. .. Fly a Supreme Court judge up every day, house and feed all his assistants, house the prisoner somewhere safe for months, employ a battalion of security, set up a barrier in Grenville St, divert the traffic, ...

He comes from Ballarat, Mrs Murphy comes from Ballarat, the crime took place in the Ballarat district, ......I don't see any reason to have it down in he VIC Supreme Court building in WIlliam St , Melbourne, one of my favourite buidings in Melbourne.. it would be easier for the prisoner, but hard on the people and familes in Ballarat.

 

[Trooper]

This is why he is having issues with alibi. In my opinion the police and other specialist professionals in data analysis have done an outstanding job in piecing the information they have from meta data, photos, cctv, public/witness statements together. I don’t believe others are involved as we would know by now. Between 7am and 7pm there are gaps he can’t provide a meaningful or logical explanarion for, Samantha’s phone pinging at 3pm and 5pm in the Buninyong area the day she disappeared springs to mind. PS is the Salmon that has jumped on the hook! Given his background he’s tech savvy, but in life when you have to rely on the human element that’s when failure occurs.

Question for Trooper - is it possible that the police could withhold various aspects of their evidence and hit PS with it between the eyes during a hearing, or would all the evidence ( they’ve got so far ) be in the hands of the defence?

One could not accuse VICPOL of being obtuse or in the habit of heavily redacting something. The thing is, if they have not disclosed it to the defence, the prosecutor cannot use it in cross examination. I mean, it is possible that things come up during the trial, but it still has to be disclosed to each other before it is placed before the judge.. the judge himself will call a halt, and bring the barristers into his chambers and thrash it between them, without the jury getting wind of it.

What VICPOL and the public prosecutor CAN do, is keep back a certain slant on things, a matter that has a slight mention but is highly important and relevant when it comes down to cross examination. Subtle, is probably the verb I'm looking for. ..

 

[JLZ]

But there is a reciprocal element going on here, that Stephenson has fallen over on. He has to give NOTICE OF ALIBI, which he should have done yesterday, which goes to the police, to VICPOL . on the grounds of Full Disclosure.. Stephenson just can't get on the stand and bring up his alibi cold.

His Barrister ( should he have one) makes an opening statement, just like the Prosecutor does, and he has to bring up this alibi at that opening statement, he can't just bring up this alibi cold, either... VICPOL is entitled to know about it, I would guess to check it out thoroughly... It's not all a one way trip,...

VICPOL has to give stuff to the defence, the defence has to give stuff to the prosecutor.. .

OK, I may have misunderstood, I thought he'd only just been committed for trial (because he has only just elected to bypass a committal hearing) and therefore he has 14 days from then (Thursday?) to give notice of alibi. He isn't late already.

 

[Trooper]

OK, I may have misunderstood, I thought he'd only just been committed for trial (because he has only just elected to bypass a committal hearing) and therefore he has 14 days from then (Thursday?) to give notice of alibi. He isn't late already.

he should have submitted his Notice of Alibi with his plea. I think, now, I was not there, but this is what I think, he perhaps did not understand that he had to give the judge Notice of any Alibi he may plan on using once the trial starts, I genuinely think he jumped the gun in his plea stuff.

Once done, though, everything moves on a different track. Then , he should have produced the notification, and normally, his highpowered Barrister would zip it out of his briefcase and pass it to the clerk. But this did not happen. There appeared to be no highpowered Barrister. The Barrister who attended is not a KC, or even an SC.. I don't know what's going on there..

The judge wants this Notification so he can make sure the prosecutor has it, and to have warning of how much time must be allocated for any witnesses that Stephenson plans on producing.

All these things must be worked out before trial. Now, what may happen is, he submits his Notice of Alibi, he names his witnesses, to whatever, .. and then VICPOL get down to business and check that alibi out. They now have to be given the time to do that.

 

[Trooper]

For Harriet.. SC or KC..

The only difference between King's Counsel (KC) and Senior Counsel (SC) in Australian law is the name. Both titles refer to senior barristers who are often involved in complex or serious cases.


The process for becoming a senior barrister varies by state and territory:

 

[Scooby-Doo]

But there is a reciprocal element going on here, that Stephenson has fallen over on. He has to give NOTICE OF ALIBI, which he should have done yesterday, which goes to the police, to VICPOL . on the grounds of Full Disclosure.. Stephenson just can't get on the stand and bring up his alibi cold.

His Barrister ( should he have one) makes an opening statement, just like the Prosecutor does, and he has to bring up this alibi at that opening statement, he can't just bring up this alibi cold, either... VICPOL is entitled to know about it, I would guess to check it out thoroughly... It's not all a one way trip,...

VICPOL has to give stuff to the defence, the defence has to give stuff to the prosecutor.. .

He can bring up his alibi in 14 days as he has been asked to by the Magistrate to file alibi evidence, the Directions Hearing will also check the availability of witnesses

Lack of an alibi does not prove that the accused committed the crime.

 

[Trooper]

He can bring up his alibi in 14 days as he has been asked to by the Magistrate to file alibi evidence, the Directions Hearing will also check the availability of witnesses

Lack of an alibi does not prove that the accused committed the crime.

How could he have a lack of an alibi? he was not suspended in space.. he was not in a time capsule somewhere, he was doing SOMETHING at that time, at SOME place. Either alone, or in company, but his corporeal body was occupying some portion of the earth's surface at 8am that Sunday morning.

As human beings, that's what we do. We occupy space. and time. from birth till death. I do. You do. Joe Blow down the road does... That's all his alibi has to signify, that he was not the person at Mt Clear at around 8am on that Sunday morning. Simple.

 

[JLZ]

He can bring up his alibi in 14 days as he has been asked to by the Magistrate to file alibi evidence, the Directions Hearing will also check the availability of witnesses

Lack of an alibi does not prove that the accused committed the crime.

If it was me, I could have been alone in bed with a book. I'm not sure what his equivalent would be.

 

[Melt71]

<snip>
Who isn't there? the Press. It is not to be reported. ( gritted teeth emoji ) .. .

Good! If the press stuck to reporting case facts and didn't do so much chasing down of innocent family members I might feel differently. It's part of the reason I feel so strongly in the Websleuths stance of not sleuthing living people that are not named as suspects.

 

[Kemug]

If it was me, I could have been alone in bed with a book. I'm not sure what his equivalent would be.

Or he could have been out with Bryan Kohberger, driving around to look at the stars through the fog, or in broad daylight, or whatever.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

How could he have a lack of an alibi? he was not suspended in space.. he was not in a time capsule somewhere, he was doing SOMETHING at that time, at SOME place. Either alone, or in company, but his corporeal body was occupying some portion of the earth's surface at 8am that Sunday morning.

As human beings, that's what we do. We occupy space. and time. from birth till death. I do. You do. Joe Blow down the road does... That's all his alibi has to signify, that he was not the person at Mt Clear at around 8am on that Sunday morning. Simple.

He could have been asleep in his car passed out when Samantha ran past, after a big night out
linking his mobile to the scene as Samantha ran past
and he can't remember a thing ?

We don't know If he's even taking the rap from someone else
whether he killed her and someone else has disposed of her body, and he doesn't know where she is, and he's keeping his mouth shut so he and his family don't get killed by a third party and complicated
He could be the clever lone killer
We don't know what the evidence is, there is still no body to link him without doubt to being Samantha's murderer
But will know everything at the trial

 

[Trooper]

He could have been asleep in his car passed out when Samantha ran past, after a big night out
linking his mobile to the scene as Samantha ran past
and he can't remember a thing ?

Sure. He has to write it out , submit it to the court, who passes that to VICPOL , who do satellite review, and bring up a pic of his car and Samantha running past. again. Simple.

But he had to submit it to the court yesterday. Which he , somehow, did not do. Why was that?

 

[Rocket333]

If it was me, I could have been alone in bed with a book. I'm not sure what his equivalent would be.

He could say he partied the night before and slept in his ute in or near the park/forest in Mt Clear overnight to avoid another traffic offence, and then headed home in the morning. That answers his proximity to the scene.
Patton stated that Samantha was intentionally murdered at Mt Clear at or around 8am on the Sunday. She was also removed from the scene. The evidence behind that confident statement would be on the table now and PS would know it, right? What is that evidence?
If it is undeniably clear and compelling, and Stephenson still denies responsibility, is he just desperately holding out for a loophole or lifeline, like someone will give him an alibi. Or is all of this just his intention to assert diminished capacity?

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Sure. He has to write it out , submit it to the court, who passes that to VICPOL , who do satellite review, and bring up a pic of his car and Samantha running past. again. Simple.

But he had to submit it to the court yesterday. Which he , somehow, did not do. Why was that?

Settle down.. The magistrate said he has 14 days. Take a breath, please

 

[Rocket333]

But he had to submit it to the court yesterday. Which he , somehow, did not do. Why was that?

1. No one advised him prior.
2. He has no alibi.

 

[SouthAussie]

Stumbled across this site, great to see such engaging respectful discussion and some smart folks here too. Mr Stephenson has in my opinion backed himself into a massive corner - meta data, public statements combined with CCTV will form the basis of the prosecution. The alibi request by the magistrate yesterday is interesting -between the hours of 7am and 7pm…gaps need to be filled, I’d say he can’t! If he takes the stand a KC will tear him to shreds. The evidence I believe is sufficient-there’s no one else involved. This guy has bitten off more than he can chew.

Where did you see the times of the alibi evidence required within 14 days? The 7am to 7pm bit? I have been looking for a link to that info but I can't find one.

The reason that I am wondering about it is that is the exact times that the police were initially asking for dash cam video.


23 February 2024
Detectives are also urging anyone travelling through the area, particularly between 7am and 7pm on Sunday 4 February, who may have dash-cam footage to also check this for possible sightings.

Police 'very doubtful' missing Ballarat mother Samantha Murphy is still alive

Police have launched a new targeted search of an area in Ballarat, and say they believe "one or more parties" were involved in Samantha Murphy's disappearance.

www.sbs.com.au

 

[Trooper]

1. No one advised him prior.
2. He has no alibi.

I would find it difficult to believe that Ms O'Brien did not comprehensively go thru every element of any proposition Stephenson referred to in their consultations.. it is a barristers job to lay all this out to the client, and leaving this bit out would be unheard of. Really. He would have been informed. Probably many times.

That said, his Duty Solicitor would have told him on the day. That is, I am presuming that he told his Duty Solicitor that he was going to plead not guilty. That is a possible scenario to me... that he just bowled on his own way.. didn't tell Micheal Allen, didn't tell anyone, didn't get any advice for the format;.. . I can see him doing that.

 

[Rocket333]

If it was me, I could have been alone in bed with a book. I'm not sure what his equivalent would be.

Asleep in his ute in the Woowookarung Park after a big night, and then heading home in the morning and going about his day with his girlfriend and family? What else can he say if his ute and phone are known to be at the crime site at that time and on that day?

Why is the timeframe 7am to 7pm?