Australia Samantha Murphy, 51, last seen leaving her property to go for a run in the Canadian State Forest, Ballarat, 4 Feb 2024 *Arrest* #13

[Trooper]

.

An observed unprecedentedly large volume of evidence (and it is yet to be determined whether such evidence will be presented by the prosecution, and is deemed admissible) indicates (to me at least) that maybe the police and prosecution do not have one killer "silver bullet" piece of evidence, and therefore their case may not be as strong as others believe it to be.

edited by me for brevity.

As a matter of indisputable fact.. the evidence of the prosecution HAS been presented by the prosecution TO the judge and TO the defence, and is indisputably therefore deemed admissable, otherwise it would have been rejected at any one of the hearings that have taken place.. It was tabled way back last year. It caused a bit of a stir as it was a large volume. Unprecedented, was the description. Anything 'inadmissable ' would have been well and truly out of the story by now.

Even though it may indicate to you that the police and prosecution are not holding silver bullets of evidence, it is completely in error to assume that none or even some of the evidence the prosecution has tabled is inadmissable. It is not. It may be refuted by the defence , but that requires more than rhetoric to succeed, and of course , proof , tangible and unarguable.

Of course, the defence may have a lot of inadmissable evidence, which may become clearer when Stephensons chosen witnesses testify, they will be crossexamined by the prosecutor and anything could go awry, there, it happens regularly, witnesses get second thoughts when on the stand and being questioned in a manner that may feel uncomfortable..

The defence has had 7 months to find anything, anything at all inadmissable in the case the prosecution presented to them, in disclosure, and so far, zip, zero, naught, nothin.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

The police need a threshold of evidence to even charge with murder, but surely that threshold must be even higher to go to trial for murder, and higher yet again to get a conviction.

Presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to a defense, and a fair trial are all tenets of our justice system.

 

[Trooper]

The police need a threshold of evidence to even charge with murder, but surely that threshold must be even higher to go to trial for murder, and higher yet again to get a conviction.

Presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to a defense, and a fair trial are all tenets of our justice system.

Stephenson has not been denied any of the tenets of our justice system, indeed he has played it to the maximum, coming up for his second year on Remand, his own clothing, phone calls, interviews with his barristers at all hours, different food, extra exercise time, he does not appear to be in any hurry to move on, and I notice that he has not , at any time, applied for bail on the grounds that VICPOL Has The Wrong Person. nope, he's a happy guy, let everyone turn themselves inside out, he can kick back on Remand until the cows come home !

If the highest threshold had not been met, the Dept, of Public Prosecution, which issues the charges against Stephenson , would not have been instigated. The Police don't lay murder charges off their own whim and will, they have to present their case to the DPP, who discuss and consult, and adjudicate the entire business, then decide whether a case can be made. They decided it could. Then, they instruct the police to arrest the suspect. So, they did..

That's how things work.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

I wouldn't be getting hung up on the "volume" of evidence.

Convictions are based on the quality of evidence, not quantity.
Hours and hours of CCTV footage from multiple cameras, pages, and pages of phone pings do not prove anything unless they can be indisputably linked to the prosecution's theory or account of events.

On the other hand, a single frame captured or a couple of isolated phone pings may on their own be enough to prove guilt.

An observed unprecedentedly large volume of evidence (and it is yet to be determined whether such evidence will be presented by the prosecution, and is deemed admissible) indicates (to me at least) that maybe the police and prosecution do not have one killer "silver bullet" piece of evidence, and therefore their case may not be as strong as others believe it to be.

The police put strategies in place, we aren't privy to what the police are doing or have done

Just to be clear - I’m not getting hung up on volume of evidence. I do agree with you insofar that hours an hours and pages and pages of data is useless unless linked to the crime - but having said that one thing as far as I’m concerned is irrefutable - that being in order to charge someone with murder they must have a substantive amount of evidence that’s not circumstantial. They likely also wouldn't tell the media hardly any of the evidence they have ( as has been seen in this case ) that way it is kept till the last minute before presenting to the defence. We may have seen an example of this from last week also with 8 witnesses to be cross examined? Maybe Troops can add to that?

Secondly Police would not and cannot charge unless they have the actual evidence of it being a deliberate act and intent. Police definitely can’t charge without evidence at all, if they did that they’d be sued every day of the week.

I stand to be corrected on the above by someone with more of a legal brain than myself - but to me, that’s fact, without getting hung up on evidence..

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Just to be clear - I’m not getting hung up on volume of evidence. I do agree with you insofar that hours an hours and pages and pages of data is useless unless linked to the crime - but having said that one thing as far as I’m concerned is irrefutable - that being in order to charge someone with murder they must have a substantive amount of evidence that’s not circumstantial. They likely also wouldn't tell the media hardly any of the evidence they have ( as has been seen in this case ) that way it is kept till the last minute before presenting to the defence. We may have seen an example of this from last week also with 8 witnesses to be cross examined? Maybe Troops can add to that?

Secondly Police would not and cannot charge unless they have the actual evidence of it being a deliberate act and intent. Police definitely can’t charge without evidence at all, if they did that they’d be sued every day of the week.

I stand to be corrected on the above by someone with more of a legal brain than myself - but to me, that’s fact, without getting hung up on evidence..

That's basically what I have said.

The Prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that not only is Sam is dead, but died at the hands of the accused and as a result of deliberate action. Otherwise, it's not murder.

 

[Bats]

Just to be clear - I’m not getting hung up on volume of evidence. I do agree with you insofar that hours an hours and pages and pages of data is useless unless linked to the crime - but having said that one thing as far as I’m concerned is irrefutable - that being in order to charge someone with murder they must have a substantive amount of evidence that’s not circumstantial. They likely also wouldn't tell the media hardly any of the evidence they have ( as has been seen in this case ) that way it is kept till the last minute before presenting to the defence. We may have seen an example of this from last week also with 8 witnesses to be cross examined? Maybe Troops can add to that?

Respectfully edited...

It may be possible that there is direct evidence and this would be if there were an eyewitness to the act of murder.

It may be that there is only circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be just as convincing and reliable as direct evidence. In some murder trials, it's stronger.

You're right Ron, most of the evidence is not told to the media. One reason being that the jury needs to be untainted.

The prosecution and defence actually work together, to a degree, pre trial. It is important that the defence is across all the evidence (and in good time) that the prosecution will be presenting. It's not so much an "us against them" situation. If more evidence is added late then the defence will ask for more time to consider it.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Respectfully edited...

It may be possible that there is direct evidence and this would be if there were an eyewitness to the act of murder.

It may be that there is only circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be just as convincing and reliable as direct evidence. In some murder trials, it's stronger.

You're right Ron, most of the evidence is not told to the media. One reason being that the jury needs to be untainted.

The prosecution and defence actually work together, to a degree, pre trial. It is important that the defence is across all the evidence (and in good time) that the prosecution will be presenting. It's not so much an "us against them" situation. If more evidence is added late then the defence will ask for more time to consider it.

100% bats

 

[Trooper]

No one saw Chris Dawson murder Lynn, all the evidence was circumstantial.. Dawson is in prison for life. Not even a body...

No one saw Paul Wilkinson murder Kylie Labouchardiere'.. all circumstantial.. Wilkinson is in prison for life. No body ever found..

Bruce Burrell murdered two women.. no one saw him do it.. all the evidence was circumstantial, no bodies found . Prison for life..

I could go on, but you get my drift.....

 

[Ron Jeremy]

No one saw Chris Dawson murder Lynn, all the evidence was circumstantial.. Dawson is in prison for life. Not even a body...

No one saw Paul Wilkinson murder Kylie Labouchardiere'.. all circumstantial.. Wilkinson is in prison for life. No body ever found..

Bruce Burrell murdered two women.. no one saw him do it.. all the evidence was circumstantial, no bodies found . Prison for life..

I could go on, but you get my drift.....

Troops stop being factual! You are getting hung up on these things!

 

[Trooper]

“Everybody is entitled to his own opinions ,” , (Bernard Baruch) “Everybody is not entitled to his own facts.”

 

[Rocket333]

“Prosecutor Raymond Gibson KC said police members and a DNA expert were among their list of proposed witnesses.”

Police members?

Also, looks like evidentary DNA was found, right? Where would they have got DNA from? Inside the ute?

Crash expert to be called in Samantha Murphy trial

Prosecutors will call evidence from a crash reconstructionist, DNA and digital forensic experts in the trial of the man charged with killing Samantha Murphy.

au.news.yahoo.com

 

[Knitty]

IMPORTANT

Effective with the arrest in this case, sub judice is in effect and will be until a trial has concluded. For anyone not familiar with the judicial principle of sub judice, please review the following.

WS is based in the USA but we do try to manage the various discussions to comply with laws of other countries.

As this trial is in Australia, the case is under sub judice so please avoid anything that violates the following principles:

Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent
(i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer"; use "the accused", "the alleged killer", or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences is off limits
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence is off limits
Any non compliance with an Order of the court is off limits

Note in the event of an Appeal subsequent to verdict:
Appeals are usually heard by senior judges who are not likely to be influenced by the media, therefore responsible comment is usually considered acceptable once a trial has concluded, regardless of if there is going to be an appeal.

Posts that are determined to constitute a violation of sub judice will be removed. To avoid this, please review the following from the Victoria Law Reform Commission and post accordingly:
10. Sub judice contempt: restricting the publication of prejudicial information

We are on thread #13. There is no reason this should have to be dragged forward again, but given the posts that have been removed this morning, some of you need a refresher. Please note - attempting to bait a member into violating TOS is also a violation of TOS.

 

[kurtneverdied]

It sure is looking like the alleged happenings involve a vehicle hitting her. The wording of police, "deliberate attack".
How can they say this without anyone else being there as a witness. It is a very strong statement to say and unless they have proof through other means like text messages etc from the accused then surely at least someone was in the car with him and is now a witness.
If he was infact at a family event the night before then the witness/witnesses likely would have been from same party. Perhaps related even.

 

[SouthAussie]

“Prosecutor Raymond Gibson KC said police members and a DNA expert were among their list of proposed witnesses.”

Police members?

Also, looks like evidentary DNA was found, right? Where would they have got DNA from? Inside the ute?

Crash expert to be called in Samantha Murphy trial

Prosecutors will call evidence from a crash reconstructionist, DNA and digital forensic experts in the trial of the man charged with killing Samantha Murphy.

au.news.yahoo.com

It is not unusual for police members to be called as witnesses. They explain (on the stand) various important parts of the investigation, and also attest to a clear chain of custody of evidence.
It is generally how the prosecutor introduces the police evidence at the trial.

imo

 

[Trooper]

It sure is looking like the alleged happenings involve a vehicle hitting her. The wording of police, "deliberate attack".
How can they say this without anyone else being there as a witness. It is a very strong statement to say and unless they have proof through other means like text messages etc from the accused then surely at least someone was in the car with him and is now a witness.
If he was infact at a family event the night before then the witness/witnesses likely would have been from same party. Perhaps related even.

The wording of the Police Commander, was, 'she was deliberately attacked' and ' it was not a hit and run'.. ... those two pieces of information have to be reconciled , and no doubt, will be, in court. The police can say this because they obviously have some sort of electronic evidence that permits the Commander to say this publicly, with confidence. It is indeed a very strong statement to make and underscores the rest of the statements VICPOL have made publicly.. the other statements made are just as strong..

That she was murdered at 8am. ( this is very unusual , ie, to know the actual time of a murder )

That the murder took place at Mt Clear ( again , unusual because no body has been found )

That it was not a hit and run. .

That she was deliberately attacked.

That the person who did it, was Mr Stephenson. And only Mr Stephenson. Hence , his arrest.

All of these are huge colossal statements about a stranger on stranger murder, these usually take years to solve.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

What has puzzled me in the beginning, is that even if she was recovering from COVID and doing a walk-run combo she shouldn’t have taken that long.

It isn’t easy to slow down your natural pace. You have a natural rhythm you fall into.

So between her home and where the phone went dead, did she stop to talk to the accused?

Did she meet the accused when she entered the forest and slowed her pace to match his?

Hatt says she took “more than an hour”. So I assume less than an hour and a half or he would have said that. So I will assume it’s around 75 minutes to do 7km.

That’s 11-minute splits on average. If she was doing a walk/run it would be faster than that, maybe 8-minute splits.

This is not someone running, this is someone walking at a brisk pace.

Makes me wonder if something happened to her soon after she entered the forest and the accused then walked that remaining distance before turning the phone off.

 

[SouthAussie]

Makes me wonder if something happened to her soon after she entered the forest and the accused then walked that remaining distance before turning the phone off.

I don't think so. It is likely an anomaly in Sam's health data that led the police to know that Sam died at Mt Clear that morning.

'Anomaly' in digital data could be clue to Samantha Murphy's disappearance

9now.nine.com.au

 

[Andieinsyd]

The wording of the Police Commander, was, 'she was deliberately attacked' and ' it was not a hit and run'.. ... those two pieces of information have to be reconciled , and no doubt, will be, in court. The police can say this because they obviously have some sort of electronic evidence that permits the Commander to say this publicly, with confidence. It is indeed a very strong statement to make and underscores the rest of the statements VICPOL have made publicly.. the other statements made are just as strong..

That she was murdered at 8am. ( this is very unusual , ie, to know the actual time of a murder )

That the murder took place at Mt Clear ( again , unusual because no body has been found )

That it was not a hit and run. .

That she was deliberately attacked.

That the person who did it, was Mr Stephenson. And only Mr Stephenson. Hence , his arrest.

All of these are huge colossal statements about a stranger on stranger murder, these usually take years to solve.

It does seem that the murder charges have been brought with confidence. Agree with your thoughts on strong digital evidence. I wonder too if there is evidence of a weapon with perpetrator and victim DNA on it. A tool perhaps, or even a branch or rock.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Acting Detective Superintendent Mark Hatt shares insight at the beginning of Samantha's disappearance

Interesting though, during this interview, police were already watching the accused and had him under their radar

The wording of the Police Commander, was, 'she was deliberately attacked' and ' it was not a hit and run'.. ... those two pieces of information have to be reconciled , and no doubt, will be, in court. The police can say this because they obviously have some sort of electronic evidence that permits the Commander to say this publicly, with confidence. It is indeed a very strong statement to make and underscores the rest of the statements VICPOL have made publicly.. the other statements made are just as strong..

That she was murdered at 8am. ( this is very unusual , ie, to know the actual time of a murder )

That the murder took place at Mt Clear ( again , unusual because no body has been found )

That it was not a hit and run. .

That she was deliberately attacked.

That the person who did it, was Mr Stephenson. And only Mr Stephenson. Hence , his arrest.

All of these are huge colossal statements about a stranger on stranger murder, these usually take years to solve.

Is there a link to her being murdered at 8am ? As I can only find what Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton said that police will allege Ms Murphy died on the day she disappeared in Mount Clear

 

[Scooby-Doo]

The wording of the Police Commander, was, 'she was deliberately attacked' and ' it was not a hit and run'.. ... those two pieces of information have to be reconciled , and no doubt, will be, in court. The police can say this because they obviously have some sort of electronic evidence that permits the Commander to say this publicly, with confidence. It is indeed a very strong statement to make and underscores the rest of the statements VICPOL have made publicly.. the other statements made are just as strong..

That she was murdered at 8am. ( this is very unusual , ie, to know the actual time of a murder )

That the murder took place at Mt Clear ( again , unusual because no body has been found )

That it was not a hit and run. .

That she was deliberately attacked.

That the person who did it, was Mr Stephenson. And only Mr Stephenson. Hence , his arrest.

All of these are huge colossal statements about a stranger on stranger murder, these usually take years to solve.

Is there a link that she was murdered at 8am ? As I can only find that Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton said, police will allege Ms Murphy died on the day she disappeared in Mount Clear