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

[Bats]

The terminology the police used seems to be doing all our heads in, but regardless of the specific cause of death, her body has obviously been removed from the scene. Presumably but not definitely, by PS himself.

Why would PS go to the length of moving and hiding Samantha's body and no commenting for 15 months so far, whilst incarcerated, if it was anything other than murder? If he or his legals genuinely believed it was anything less than murder and the facts supported that, surely they would be cooperating?

I think there are some similarities here to Karen Ristevski's death.
Borce Ristevski denied knowing what happened to Karen. He was even a pallbearer at her funeral.
Borce had killed Karen and moved her body up to some bushland half an hour's drive away, to hide her.

Karen's body was found by chance by some hikers more than a year after she went missing. Borce still denied knowing what happened until just before the trial where he pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

Perhaps in this case, like Borce, he is simply in denial.

Borce Ristevski pleads guilty to killing wife

 

[Sor Juana]

The terminology the police used seems to be doing all our heads in, but regardless of the specific cause of death, her body has obviously been removed from the scene. Presumably but not definitely, by PS himself.

Why would PS go to the length of moving and hiding Samantha's body and no commenting for 15 months so far, whilst incarcerated, if it was anything other than murder? If he or his legals genuinely believed it was anything less than murder and the facts supported that, surely they would be cooperating?

He may be hoping to avoid any charges altogether, rather than negotiate for a lesser offence, such as causing death by accident. However, that’s unlikely to suffice for him, as there will inevitably be further charges--interfering with a deceased body, failing to report the incident, and the unresolved question of whether Samantha was killed instantly. In his situation, denial might seem the easier course. We also don’t know what advice his legal team has given him. I find it hard to believe he could maintain such steadfast silence without the backing of his lawyers--and perhaps his family as well. JMO

 

[HoneyBunOne]

He may be hoping to avoid any charges altogether, rather than negotiate for a lesser offence, such as causing death by accident. However, that’s unlikely to suffice for him, as there will inevitably be further charges--interfering with a deceased body, failing to report the incident, and the unresolved question of whether Samantha was killed instantly. In his situation, denial might seem the easier course. We also don’t know what advice his legal team has given him. I find it hard to believe he could maintain such steadfast silence without the backing of his lawyers--and perhaps his family as well. JMO

Don't forget he's only 23. He is still at the age where some young guys feel invincible, and don't think all the bad stuff is going to happen to them. He didn't seem to learn from his last traffic accident, so maybe he's just too cocky for his own good?

 

[Scooby-Doo]

If what the police allege is true, then Samantha must have been moved from Mt Clear, or her body would have been close to where she was allegedly killed.

It is not easy for a single person to move an adult body any distance in a short time without a vehicle.

Therefore, if what the police allege happened, it is entirely reasonable to assume there must have been a vehicle involved in the movement of her body.

Unless police can explain how this was done.

Alternate explanations: Police are incorrect, Samantha wasn't killed at Mt Clear, the accused didn't do it, OR someone else was involved. Any of these are possibility as there is no direct evidence proving any of them.

<modsnip - opinion stated as fact>

Unless it can be proven that no one else was also there, then there is reasonable doubt that the accused is the offender.

The defence only needs to show it is possible that someone else could have been there.

Mount Clear is a fairly popular location on a Sunday Morning.

It is reasonable to consider that another person was also there at around the same time, who has not been identified, and the accused was just a passer-by with his phone on or asleep in his car with his phone left on

 

[starlightstarbright]

I think if PS did cause her death, he almost certainly has moved her body, given she was not found nearby the site of the suspected incident in Mt Clear. We can assume that is in some sort of vehicle, one of a number he may have had access to, though I imagine it was the one he was driving at the time.

Maybe a very experienced killer could get away with not leaving forensic evidence in the vehicle. But this is a possibly still inebriated fool who very likely did not have the experience or head about him to protect surfaces from DNA transfer. There has got to also be forensic evidence in that vehicle. I think if there isn’t, this gets trickier to prove without a body. JMO

 

[Spectrix]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

The information blackout in this case certainly adds to the mystery doesn't it.

We can really only speculate what is alleged to have happened based on reports that PS had partied the night before and a crash reconstruction expert being called as a witness -

On one hand, when I consider that he'd recovered from a self-inflicted DUI crash on a motorbike - I can certainly accept the possibility that a subsequent DUI pedestrian incident may have occurred.

One the other hand, I question whether someone recovering from a spinal fracture, lacerated spleen, broken ribs and fractured pelvis from only a few months earlier, was physically able to move a body on his own?

 

[BreakingNews]

We don't know what we don't know

 

[Trooper]

That's it. The information blackout in this case certainly adds to the mystery doesn't it.

We can really only speculate what is alleged to have happened based on reports that PS had partied the night before and a crash reconstruction expert being called as a witness -

On one hand, when I consider that he'd recovered from a self-inflicted DUI crash on a motorbike - I can certainly accept the possibility that a subsequent DUI pedestrian incident may have occurred.

One the other hand, I question whether someone recovering from a spinal fracture, lacerated spleen, broken ribs and fractured pelvis from only a few months earlier, was physically able to move a body on his own?

We have actually been told quite a lot. Certainly, a great deal more than most murders involving two strangers to each other happening to intercept and one murders the other. These are the most difficult of all cases to solve, as there generally is no starting point. This one, in particular, where there is no body to investigate forensically.

But even so, this is what the police have disclosed.

That she was out running, or jogging, ( she was recovering from Covid and may not have been as fast as previously.)

That she reached as far out as Mt Clear,

That she reached Mt Clear about 7.55 - 8.00am

That at around or close to 8.00am she was murdered. at Mt Clear.,

At this point, VICPOL state, that she was 'attacked' .. that it was not a ' hit and run' situation. but an 'attack'.

That the person that attacked her, was Mr Stephenson. That he was the only person who attacked her.

That she died , subsequent to this attack, at or around 8.00am. And that she died as a result of this attack.

That is a very great deal of information. As to how the police know these points I cannot say, but they must have concrete evidence to present in court, and since the defence has had everything the prosecutor (police ) has, and they have not applied for bail on the grounds of dicey and presumptive evidence, over the last 1 1/2 years, one could safely presume that the evidence is rather strong, if not very strong.

 

[SouthAussie]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
<modsnip - bickering>
I feel that there is enough evidence for the prosecution to take PS to court for Sam's disappearance and presumed death. And in time we will hear what that evidence is.

imo

 

[Scooby-Doo]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
<modsnip - bickering>
I feel that there is enough evidence for the prosecution to take PS to court for Sam's disappearance and presumed death. And in time we will hear what that evidence is.

imo

<modsnip - bickering>
We don't know what evidence will be presented at the trial from both sides

 

[SouthAussie]

We don't know what evidence will be presented at the trial from both sides

The defence in most cases usually throws mud at the wall and hopes that some sticks. Just enough to create reasonable doubt with a couple of jury members. It doesn't even have to be evidence, just alternate theories.

Which is why the police have to be careful that they can prove that they have cancelled out any potential alternate theories.

The outcome will depend on how strong the prosecution's evidence is. At the moment we know that PS was arrested quite quickly (didn't drag on for months and months), police are exhibiting some certainty about a timeline, and the prosecutor has agreed to try the case ... which generally signifies that the prosecutor feels that enough evidence is there.

imo

 

[Scooby-Doo]

The defence in most cases usually throws mud at the wall and hopes that some sticks. Just enough to create reasonable doubt with a couple of jury members. It doesn't even have to be evidence, just alternate theories.

Which is why the police have to be careful that they can prove that they have cancelled out any potential alternate theories.

The outcome will depend on how strong the prosecution's evidence is. At the moment we know that PS was arrested quite quickly (didn't drag on for months and months), police are exhibiting some certainty about a timeline, and the prosecutor has agreed to try the case ... which generally signifies that the prosecutor feels that enough evidence is there.

imo

If the police and prosecution do not have one killer "silver bullet" piece of evidence, their case may not be as strong as others believe it to be.

Convictions are based on the quality of evidence, not quantity.

We wait to see what the defence evidence will be

 

[SouthAussie]

We wait to see what the defence evidence will be

What I was getting at is that the defence does not have to provide any evidence. We don't know if they will present any. But we do know that the prosecution has to provide evidence and prove their case.


The accused does not have to present any evidence to support his or her case.
The accused does not bear the burden of proving that he or she is not guilty, unless he or she raises a specific defence to the charge (such as self-defence).
The accused has three choices to make after the close of the prosecution case.
He or she may:

• make an argument that there is no case to answer on the evidence presented in the prosecution case
• give evidence or call evidence from other witnesses
• choose not to give evidence or call any witnesses

CRIMINAL TRIAL PROCESS

 

[Scooby-Doo]

What I was getting at is that the defence does not have to provide any evidence. We don't know if they will present any. But we do know that the prosecution has to provide evidence and prove their case.


The accused does not have to present any evidence to support his or her case.
The accused does not bear the burden of proving that he or she is not guilty, unless he or she raises a specific defence to the charge (such as self-defence).
The accused has three choices to make after the close of the prosecution case.
He or she may:

• make an argument that there is no case to answer on the evidence presented in the prosecution case
• give evidence or call evidence from other witnesses
• choose not to give evidence or call any witnesses

CRIMINAL TRIAL PROCESS

Yes, the prosecution has to provide the evidence, but as I have said
If the police and prosecution do not have one killer "silver bullet" piece of evidence, their case may not be as strong as others believe it to be.

Convictions are based on the quality of evidence, not quantity.

We don't know what the accused will say or do. He might have a 'star witness' to support his version of events, and other witnesses

 

[Trooper]

Yes, the prosecution has to provide the evidence, but as I have said
If the police and prosecution do not have one killer "silver bullet" piece of evidence, their case may not be as strong as others believe it to be.

Convictions are based on the quality of evidence, not quantity.

We don't know what the accused will say or do. He might have a 'star witness' to support his version of events, and other witnesses

If he does have this star witness, then the prosecutor knows about it, all about it, under the rules of disclosure... it is not going to be a surprise to the Prosecutor , nor the police who have had time to check out the claims of this 'star witness' .

We don't even know if Mr Stephenson will take the stand. It is reasonable to assume his witnesses , all 9 of them that he has disclosed to the judge in the hearings will , naturally, testify.. but here is the thing. On the stand, when it comes down to tin tacks,, things often change , especially if the witness for the defence is not properly prepared to be cross examined. To quote Rumpole, this does not mean to be examined crossly, but to have one's statements and claims refuted and challenged.

Things tend to go south very quickly.


So let us hope, for Mr Stephensons sake, that his witnesses are well and truly woodshedded, as the process is commonly called, that is, they practice and practice and are coached and coached, to deal with all sorts of left field enquiries.

 

[SouthAussie]

If he does have this star witness, then the prosecutor knows about it, all about it, under the rules of disclosure... it is not going to be a surprise to the Prosecutor , nor the police who have had time to check out the claims of this 'star witness' .

We don't even know if Mr Stephenson will take the stand. It is reasonable to assume his witnesses , all 9 of them that he has disclosed to the judge in the hearings will , naturally, testify.. but here is the thing. On the stand, when it comes down to tin tacks,, things often change , especially if the witness for the defence is not properly prepared to be cross examined. To quote Rumpole, this does not mean to be examined crossly, but to have one's statements and claims refuted and challenged.

Things tend to go south very quickly.


So let us hope, for Mr Stephensons sake, that his witnesses are well and truly woodshedded, as the process is commonly called, that is, they practice and practice and are coached and coached, to deal with all sorts of left field enquiries.

And for all we know some/all could merely be character witnesses. Not even evidentiary witnesses.
(mum, dad, girlfriend, trade school teacher, a repeat customer or two, for example)


The defence may adduce evidence of the accused’s good character (Section 110, Uniform Evidence Act). The evidence may be used to impute that the accused is a good person in general or in a particular respect.

Good character evidence can be opinion evidence from a witness about the character of the accused or evidence about the accused’s reputation in the community.

The weight that the court can give to character evidence will depend on a number of factors, including the strength of the other evidence supporting the charge, the nature of the offence charged and the relationship between the character established and the type of offence charged.

Character Evidence (Vic)

Character evidence is evidence that relates to whether an accused is of good or bad character. Whether or not character evidence is admissible in a proceeding depends on whether the evidence is of good or bad character.

www.gotocourt.com.au

 

[Scooby-Doo]

If he does have this star witness, then the prosecutor knows about it, all about it, under the rules of disclosure... it is not going to be a surprise to the Prosecutor , nor the police who have had time to check out the claims of this 'star witness' .

We don't even know if Mr Stephenson will take the stand. It is reasonable to assume his witnesses , all 9 of them that he has disclosed to the judge in the hearings will , naturally, testify.. but here is the thing. On the stand, when it comes down to tin tacks,, things often change , especially if the witness for the defence is not properly prepared to be cross examined. To quote Rumpole, this does not mean to be examined crossly, but to have one's statements and claims refuted and challenged.

Things tend to go south very quickly.


So let us hope, for Mr Stephensons sake, that his witnesses are well and truly woodshedded, as the process is commonly called, that is, they practice and practice and are coached and coached, to deal with all sorts of left field enquiries.

Of course, the prosecutor needs to check out a star witness, checking the reliability, background, trustworthiness, not being biased, etc

I am sure his witnesses will be prepared and know what to expect

Whether or not it was a deliberate act (or anything else) needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

 

[Trooper]

Of course, the prosecutor needs to check out a star witness, checking the reliability, background, trustworthiness, not being biased, etc

I am sure his witnesses will be prepared and know what to expect

Whether or not it was a deliberate act (or anything else) needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

well.. ... his witness will ipso facto be biased.. otherwise he/she would be a witness for the prosecution. It goes without saying.

 

[kurtneverdied]

well.. ... his witness will ipso facto be biased.. otherwise he/she would be a witness for the prosecution. It goes without saying.

Not if they are telling the truth.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

well.. ... his witness will ipso facto be biased.. otherwise he/she would be a witness for the prosecution. It goes without saying.

His witness is there to support him and supposedly be trustworthy. They can do all the checks and have the boxes ticked.
It's up to the prosecution to have strong evidence