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

[BreakingNews]

I have that little niggling feeling, too.
But I am not sure if the accused in this case will be allowed to plead down to manslaughter. The police seem pretty sure it was a deliberate attack on Samantha.

I don't think I ever heard them say that about Borce and Karen (even though I think Karen's death was deliberate, personally). In that case I think they were relying on the proven fact that Borce disposed of Karen, to indicate murder.

I wonder if the family even gets to hear what the accused 'says' happened, when a defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge and that's it for public disclosure?

imo

After sentencing, I have heard Judges strongly advise the guilty person to write and tell everything to the family. (Case Damon Calanca, Queensland). I would think it would help them in getting early parole. Showing remorse too. But not all can do that. MOO.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Good point Porky. The driveway photo is the only one released from that morning. There would be more but that’s all we got. The pink-strap smart watch is front and centre for all to see.

There is a slight bulge on her waist which could be nothing or it could be a running belt of some sort with her phone in it. The photo I have attached is just an example of a running belt and not Samantha’s.

Samantha had her phone with her and looked bulky, so I doubt very much that she’d be holding it whilst jogging or walking. The chances are that it was zipped up and out of sight in a pocket or a running/bum bag.

There’s a chance the accused wasn’t initially aware of her phone and might have thought that Sam only had a smart watch on her. Perhaps the watch was smashed at Mt Clear and shards of its glass were found, or perhaps it fell off her and was found early on (it featured front & centre in the driveway photo and a replica was also on the desk in full display in the UI show). It had significance.

Pockets in running leggings in Oz aren’t really hard to find and she was a regular runner so she’d be kitted out. The weight of her wallet though would pull her leggings down, so my bet is that she clipped a bag around her waist to carry it. All just sleuthin’ speculation.

This still photo from her home security still bugs me.
The date/time has been removed
The police for some reason are only sticking to this main photo on the day she disappeared, but they would have had other security footage they could also use
No full open-length photo away from the vehicle showing the pants properly, or the type of running shoes, they could have used the next frame when she stepped forward from the vehicle
She is walking up from her driveway with supposedly a bag of dog poo, than going down the driveway ready for her run

 

[Rocket333]

She is walking up from her driveway with supposedly a bag of dog poo, than going down the driveway ready for her run

View attachment 567351

Hope Sam took that bag with her on her run, and used it.

 

[kurtneverdied]

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.

Totally agree these are big words that would need almost bulletproof evidence.
"Deliberate attack"- So to prove this, what would the police have as evidence? It could refer to an attack after he hit her with his car. In both scenarios, deliberate attack by car or after hitting her would need to be solid, undisputable evidence. The only 3 things I can think of are he was with someone who has come forward as a witness or he had a dash cam which recorded a murder and/or recorded audio of him. Or Samantha's phone was recording audio somehow (she had time to turn it if in a threatening situation).
"Not a hit and run"- Again huge, solid evidence needed. How can they be convinced it wasn't just an accident? They surely could not prove that without something solid like a witness or dashcam or recording of some kind. Without it it's all circumstantial evidence. If he had told someone like a mate what happened and that mate became a witness then it still isn't enough as he can just say he lied to his mate.
So basically there has to be some huge evidence we have no idea about. Not that that is surprising or anything I've said is anything new.

 

[Melt71]

Pockets in running leggings in Oz aren’t really hard to find and she was a regular runner so she’d be kitted out. The weight of her wallet though would pull her leggings down, so my bet is that she clipped a bag around her waist to carry it. All just sleuthin’ speculation.

If I'm running and not headed to the shops, I have my ATM cards and licence tucked loose in my phone cover and just fit everything in the pocket of my leggings. I think she's just got a big of mum tum under the shirt, haha maybe it takes one to know one

 

[Cedars]

Totally agree these are big words that would need almost bulletproof evidence.
"Deliberate attack"- So to prove this, what would the police have as evidence? It could refer to an attack after he hit her with his car. In both scenarios, deliberate attack by car or after hitting her would need to be solid, undisputable evidence. The only 3 things I can think of are he was with someone who has come forward as a witness or he had a dash cam which recorded a murder and/or recorded audio of him. Or Samantha's phone was recording audio somehow (she had time to turn it if in a threatening situation).
"Not a hit and run"- Again huge, solid evidence needed. How can they be convinced it wasn't just an accident? They surely could not prove that without something solid like a witness or dashcam or recording of some kind. Without it it's all circumstantial evidence. If he had told someone like a mate what happened and that mate became a witness then it still isn't enough as he can just say he lied to his mate.
So basically there has to be some huge evidence we have no idea about. Not that that is surprising or anything I've said is anything new.

'Accident' reconstruction is a big thing. The tracks of a vehicle are used to determine exactly what happened, for eg, was a single-vehicle fatality an accident, or deliberate suicide.

IMO they know the location she was hit, from forensics at the site; what she was doing before and after she was hit (her running app);, and what the tracks of the vehicle show that it did, plus damage to the vehicle can estimate force ie acceleration.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

A few days after Samantha disappeared, forensics examined what looked like a brownish substance, probably tree sap on a tree near a vehicular track.

This may or may not have been evidence of a vehicle hitting that tree,

And we don't know if that particular tree was where the alleged incident occurred, whether the tree was damaged by a vehicle, or what type of vehicle or when. Police have not confirmed any of this

Police allege Murphy was murdered in a “deliberate attack” in Mount Clear. They have ruled out Murphy’s death being the result of a hit and run, and believe the alleged murder was an “intentional act”.

Possibly a vehicle was damaged Only after the fact, while trying to flee the scene

My thoughts are Samantha must have been moved from Mt Clear, or her body would have been close to where she was allegedly killed.

Hiding a body takes some time and effort. If she was not immediately removed from the area where the alleged incident/attack/encounter with the accused took place, then a passer-by, witness would almost certainly have seen something.

 

[Bats]

Totally agree these are big words that would need almost bulletproof evidence.
"Deliberate attack"- So to prove this, what would the police have as evidence? It could refer to an attack after he hit her with his car. In both scenarios, deliberate attack by car or after hitting her would need to be solid, undisputable evidence. The only 3 things I can think of are he was with someone who has come forward as a witness or he had a dash cam which recorded a murder and/or recorded audio of him. Or Samantha's phone was recording audio somehow (she had time to turn it if in a threatening situation).
"Not a hit and run"- Again huge, solid evidence needed. How can they be convinced it wasn't just an accident? They surely could not prove that without something solid like a witness or dashcam or recording of some kind. Without it it's all circumstantial evidence. If he had told someone like a mate what happened and that mate became a witness then it still isn't enough as he can just say he lied to his mate.
So basically there has to be some huge evidence we have no idea about. Not that that is surprising or anything I've said is anything new.

I think "Deliberate attack" is the same as "intentional attack", describing what constitutes "murder".

"Not hit and run" - since there is no body its not a hit and run. If it was hit and run, there'd be Sam's body lying on the track somewhere.

The investigators don't necessarily need direct evidence like an eyewitness or a recording to be able to deduce that a murder has taken place. For example, circumstantial evidence in some instances be used to rule out every other scenario.

MOO

 

[Rocket333]

If I'm running and not headed to the shops, I have my ATM cards and licence tucked loose in my phone cover and just fit everything in the pocket of my leggings. I think she's just got a big of mum tum under the shirt, haha maybe it takes one to know one

The bulge at the back Melt. She had the phone wallet on her as it was retrieved from the dam, and the bulge towards her back could easily be a running belt or bum bag with the phone in it.

 

[Porky1]

If I'm running and not headed to the shops, I have my ATM cards and licence tucked loose in my phone cover and just fit everything in the pocket of my leggings. I think she's just got a big of mum tum under the shirt, haha maybe it takes one to know one

The cards all can be digitised, we just need our phone.
After seeing a pic of her bulging case, there are very few places to store that without the bulk causing irritation. I think it’s sitting at her waistband either in a rear pocket or belt. The ‘mum tum’ doesn’t have right angles’. Sad that she thought all that was necessary for a run.

 

[kurtneverdied]

I think "Deliberate attack" is the same as "intentional attack", describing what constitutes "murder".

"Not hit and run" - since there is no body its not a hit and run. If it was hit and run, there'd be Sam's body lying on the track somewhere.

The investigators don't necessarily need direct evidence like an eyewitness or a recording to be able to deduce that a murder has taken place. For example, circumstantial evidence in some instances be used to rule out every other scenario.

MOO

I believe this leaves too many holes to be able to be confident in laying a murder charge and the potential for it to be downgraded to manslaughter.
He and defence could argue an alternative to what the police believe happened. He could say something like he accidentally hit her and was taking her to hospital and then panicked and left her somewhere. All kinds of things.
Even the data of her watch wouldn't solely be enough to convince a jury that a particular thing 100% happened.
The deliberate murder has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, so their has to be more evidence to prove the difference between accidental and deliberate.
I don't think the removal of the body is evidence on intent either as he could of panicked and hid her which I don't think means murder it's manslaughter and then other charges for failing to report it etc.
From the period of him entering that road to him leaving that road there has to be a very clear and solid piece of evidence otherwise it's just on the basis of probability, which likely wouldn't mean a murder charge. Similar to Russel Hill getting manslaughter for Ms Clay.

 

[Kemug]

I wonder if the girlfriend is still standing by him - they usually do, until the verdict.

 

[SouthAussie]

I wonder if the girlfriend is still standing by him - they usually do, until the verdict.

Especially if the accused is found guilty and locked up for many years. She is young and likely wants the kind of future that many young people want ... perhaps a marriage, perhaps children.

imo

 

[Trooper]

I believe this leaves too many holes to be able to be confident in laying a murder charge and the potential for it to be downgraded to manslaughter.

edited by me for brevity.
On March 8th, VICPOL arrested Stephenson for murder, after consultation with the Dept. of Public Prosecution , who , as their label implies, takes VICPOL's cases to court. The police hand over all their stuff to the DPP and the DPP decides if a case is valid, and winnable. In the DPP are a cohort of very astute and learned Barristers, Lawyers, Paralegals, etc, for whom this is their profession. It's what they do, all day, every day, go over evidence with a fine tooth comb and after consultation, make decisions in regard to the progress or non progress of a matter bought before them.

So the DPP would be not in agreement with your conclusion at this point, and since they have maintained this position, that Stephenson murdered Ms Murphy, with intent, and because it is murder, with malice aforethought, and they claim they have the evidence to back this conclusion up, it is highly unlikely that they could be persuaded by anything to downgrade the charge to Manslaughter.

The defence has had all the evidence pertaining to the case the DPP intends to bring to court, quite an unprecedented amount ,and the Prosecution has the list and particulars of all the witnesses, (8) that Stephenson intends to bring to testify, PLUS (1) extra who's statement has not quite been finalised, when this is done , it will be handed to the prosecution, under disclosure orders. The defence itself has not argued for the charge to be downgraded, at any point in the proceedings . And they have had 3 hearings so far to propose this change.

( As to the mystery 9th witness, I wonder if it is a psychiatrist who has been treating Stephenson all this time.. very late witnesses are rare, what would be the reason for someone holding onto information all this time, if it is not some medical matter ? .. I can think of only one very late witness and that witness was for the prosecution, in the case of Robert Farquarson's second trial, she had been ill, she had moved to NZ, but she caught up with things when she returned to AU, her testimony was devastating to Farquarson's story, it absolutely buried it. He was convicted of murder of his 3 small sons. )

 

[Bats]

I believe this leaves too many holes to be able to be confident in laying a murder charge and the potential for it to be downgraded to manslaughter.
He and defence could argue an alternative to what the police believe happened. He could say something like he accidentally hit her and was taking her to hospital and then panicked and left her somewhere. All kinds of things.
Even the data of her watch wouldn't solely be enough to convince a jury that a particular thing 100% happened.
The deliberate murder has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, so their has to be more evidence to prove the difference between accidental and deliberate.
I don't think the removal of the body is evidence on intent either as he could of panicked and hid her which I don't think means murder it's manslaughter and then other charges for failing to report it etc.
From the period of him entering that road to him leaving that road there has to be a very clear and solid piece of evidence otherwise it's just on the basis of probability, which likely wouldn't mean a murder charge. Similar to Russel Hill getting manslaughter for Ms Clay.

The charge the police have laid is one of murder. There have been many trials that have seen a conviction of murder based on circumstances alone. A good example is the conviction of Chris Dawson. In that case it was the act of moving in his girlfriend almost immediately, lying about the story of Lyn's disappearance, amongst other things.

In this case, the accused and his defence are in no position to say it was an accident, without the disclosure of where Sam's body is.

BTW... Russell Hill and Carol Clay were friends.

 

[Melt71]

The cards all can be digitised, we just need our phone.
After seeing a pic of her bulging case, there are very few places to store that without the bulk causing irritation. I think it’s sitting at her waistband either in a rear pocket or belt. The ‘mum tum’ doesn’t have right angles’. Sad that she thought all that was necessary for a run.

You realise both Samantha and I are women in our 50s? That kind of modern invention is for the next gen, mate. My kids in their 20s and 30s have electronic cards but my husband still tap plastic If Sam's wearing a running belt it could have her hydration in it - it was going to be a warm day. Also if she was intending to head along a trail then I hope she was carrying a snakebite bandage in there. I tend to shove both the bottle and bandage in the opposite leg pocket to my phone (I don't like waist belts) but I do end up looking like I'm carrying the kitchen sink; a belt would be very practical.

 

[Marg944]

I wonder if the girlfriend is still standing by him - they usually do, until the verdict.

Back in January of this year, P O S’s solicitor said that his long-time partner was supporting him and was in regular contact. I guess only time will tell how long for……


“She said Stephenson’s parents, siblings and long-term partner supported him and were in regular contact with him while he was on remand.”

Accused Samantha Murphy killer guilty of other charges

The man accused of killing Victorian woman Samantha Murphy has been fined $2500 after admitting careless, drug and drink-driving charges.

www.thenewdaily.com.au

 

[kurtneverdied]

edited by me for brevity.
On March 8th, VICPOL arrested Stephenson for murder, after consultation with the Dept. of Public Prosecution , who , as their label implies, takes VICPOL's cases to court. The police hand over all their stuff to the DPP and the DPP decides if a case is valid, and winnable. In the DPP are a cohort of very astute and learned Barristers, Lawyers, Paralegals, etc, for whom this is their profession. It's what they do, all day, every day, go over evidence with a fine tooth comb and after consultation, make decisions in regard to the progress or non progress of a matter bought before them.

So the DPP would be not in agreement with your conclusion at this point, and since they have maintained this position, that Stephenson murdered Ms Murphy, with intent, and because it is murder, with malice aforethought, and they claim they have the evidence to back this conclusion up, it is highly unlikely that they could be persuaded by anything to downgrade the charge to Manslaughter.

The defence has had all the evidence pertaining to the case the DPP intends to bring to court, quite an unprecedented amount ,and the Prosecution has the list and particulars of all the witnesses, (8) that Stephenson intends to bring to testify, PLUS (1) extra who's statement has not quite been finalised, when this is done , it will be handed to the prosecution, under disclosure orders. The defence itself has not argued for the charge to be downgraded, at any point in the proceedings . And they have had 3 hearings so far to propose this change.

( As to the mystery 9th witness, I wonder if it is a psychiatrist who has been treating Stephenson all this time.. very late witnesses are rare, what would be the reason for someone holding onto information all this time, if it is not some medical matter ? .. I can think of only one very late witness and that witness was for the prosecution, in the case of Robert Farquarson's second trial, she had been ill, she had moved to NZ, but she caught up with things when she returned to AU, her testimony was devastating to Farquarson's story, it absolutely buried it. He was convicted of murder of his 3 small sons. )

My bad I meant Greg Lynn of course!
I don't disagree with what you have said and impressed by your knowledge.
However you say the DPP would not agree with my conclusion when they have seen all the evidence and I/we are just speculating.
Therefore to say they don't agree is probably the wrong wording.
My conclusion you allude to will not be known if correct until the trial and it is not fanciful to think that there may be quite damning evidence into that alleged incident down that road.
If the prosecution has not argued for the charges to be downgraded and also the charge of murder in the first place then that perhaps enhances my chances my conclusion is correct.
We don't know anything other than they investigated a scene and looked at a tree and perhaps some sap on the ground.

 

[Trooper]

My bad I meant Greg Lynn of course!
I don't disagree with what you have said and impressed by your knowledge.
However you say the DPP would not agree with my conclusion when they have seen all the evidence and I/we are just speculating.
Therefore to say they don't agree is probably the wrong wording.
My conclusion you allude to will not be known if correct until the trial and it is not fanciful to think that there may be quite damning evidence into that alleged incident down that road.
If the prosecution has not argued for the charges to be downgraded and also the charge of murder in the first place then that perhaps enhances my chances my conclusion is correct.
We don't know anything other than they investigated a scene and looked at a tree and perhaps some sap on the ground.

<modsnip>

It is for the defence to put up a solid argument ( which in this case would , without doubt, require the body to be presented, at the very least , so the proposal can be verified ) that it was an accident. Him saying it is of no use to him whatsoever, much more is required, because, the police have done much more, (they've had tracers, trackers, horses, forensics, missing-persons squad, they tracked the phone, her phone, and her smart watch, which is how they know what time she was murdered, they have without doubt tracked Stephensons phone for months,) than investigate the scene, look at a tree and some sap, where this idea came from who knows. Whatever they found, they concluded it was murder, and what is more, the defence has had what the prosecution has found for 9 months now., and still the defence has not found a hole big enough to drive a downgrade thru.

The prosecution has all the evidence the defence is going to put forward in their argument for their client, and nothing in that has persuaded the DPP to downgrade the charge .. I am merely pointing this out so that the process can be perhaps better understood..

<modsnip>

I am not speculating on this... I was pointing out the obvious, because there is no downgrade in the offing!!... HIS OWN BARRISTERS are maintaining his innocence, to have it downgraded to manslaughter means he has to admit killing Mrs Murphy and then hiding her body , just sheer bad luck or some other reason, he tripped over her, she threw herself at him, but nothing of the sort has emerged from the defence on that perspective AT ALL.


Hope this helps...

 

[BreakingNews]

You realise both Samantha and I are women in our 50s? That kind of modern invention is for the next gen, mate. My kids in their 20s and 30s have electronic cards but my husband still tap plastic If Sam's wearing a running belt it could have her hydration in it - it was going to be a warm day. Also if she was intending to head along a trail then I hope she was carrying a snakebite bandage in there. I tend to shove both the bottle and bandage in the opposite leg pocket to my phone (I don't like waist belts) but I do end up looking like I'm carrying the kitchen sink; a belt would be very practical.

But remember Mrs Murphy was tech savvy to have a health smart watch, and her work as the business manager would necessitate her to have good tech skills.