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

[Knitty]

MOD NOTE: The second post on each of the threads for this case since PS was arrested:

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

Mar 12, 2024

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...

• Knitty

• 

Please review that. Also, STOP BICKERING. Posts have been removed/modified.

 

[Bats]

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.

I think you may be underestimating the Vicpol investigation here @Scooby-Doo.

Based on their reputation, it isn't normal for them to present swiss cheese to the DPP.

 

[BreakingNews]

Not if they are telling the truth.

After all the public videos in the past of the alleged being deep into behaviour suggesting drugs and alcohol, I'm sure any character witness would be asked about that. Would be difficult to lie and seem to be a credible witness.

 

[Rocket333]

I reckon Stephenson may have told VicPol that he was in Canadian on that morning doing a, b & c and VicPol has gone, “where exactly, show us” and he’s gone there with them to show them where he camped for the night or parked his ute and nicked a tree, hence his smashed headlight or whatever etc. Then they’ve said, “show us again as we can’t quite understand where you were and what you did” so they’re returning to see if both accounts align and there’s any merit to it.

He’d only go there if he thought it’d benefit him, and they’d only bother taking him if he was participating in some way. Otherwise it’d be a futile exercise and a big waste of time.

All speculation.

 

[Trooper]

What was he doing there at 8.00am on a Sunday morning ? he was living with the girlfriend, house sitting, 14 klms down the road. His parents live at Mt Clear. This was where he had been living before playing house down the road a ways... But there must be some reason why he was where he obviously, according to police was situated. At Mt Clear. We know that Mrs Murphy was jogging out and back, but what was he there for?

It is reasonable to assume that he was unaware of Mrs Murphy's running route, and habits. That it was coincidental. That is ,he didn't know she was running that track, she didn't know anything about him nor know he would be at the Mt Clear section of the track.

Unless his story is, he was never near Mt Clear at all. .. but that then presupposes that VICPOL made up the entire story, which seems absurd, mainly because they have a great stake in finding who did this, and it is no use arresting the wrong person, as the killing would go on. And for VICPOL to invent the story it requires an awful lot of coppers to agree, (a) to the story and (b) to perjure themselves. Bad move for one's career. I, frankly, do not see that as a rational possibility . Too many involved, not all policewere from one station or section. Homicide, Missing Persons, Dog squad, SES, the public , Army cadets, etc.. Everybody has to agree to lie. Others may see it differently.

Or. .. his story is, he was, yes , at Mt Clear, and saw nothing. Heard nothing. Knows nothing.

And , therefore, there must be solid evidence that he was there, at Mt Clear, at 8am, on that warmish Sunday morning. Otherwise the whole thing falls apart. And equally, solid evidence that shows murder, and not accident, or manslaughter, or just bad luck.,

 

[SouthAussie]

He’d only go there if he thought it’d benefit him, and they’d only bother taking him if he was participating in some way. Otherwise it’d be a futile exercise and a big waste of time.

All speculation.

One benefit to him might just be to get out of remand for a while. See his home territory, smell the fresh air, listen to the birds, maybe see a kangaroo, feel the sunshine.

He has been in remand for over a year. It is possible that he is wasting police time, but they are hoping for a psychological reaction to wherever they take him and whatever they say or do while there.

imo

“It is certainly not abnormal, but I’m not surprised by this development. They are trying to talk to him to get as much information to help them with the investigation as possible,”

Top criminologist breaks down new development in Samantha Murphy case

The man accused of the 51-year-old mum’s murder has been pulled from jail and taken to Victorian bushland.

7news.com.au

 

[Rocket333]

What was he doing there at 8.00am on a Sunday morning ? he was living with the girlfriend, house sitting, 14 klms down the road. His parents live at Mt Clear. This was where he had been living before playing house down the road a ways... But there must be some reason why he was where he obviously, according to police was situated. At Mt Clear. We know that Mrs Murphy was jogging out and back, but what was he there for?

It is reasonable to assume that he was unaware of Mrs Murphy's running route, and habits. That it was coincidental. That is ,he didn't know she was running that track, she didn't know anything about him nor know he would be at the Mt Clear section of the track.

Unless his story is, he was never near Mt Clear at all. .. but that then presupposes that VICPOL made up the entire story, which seems absurd, mainly because they have a great stake in finding who did this, and it is no use arresting the wrong person, as the killing would go on. And for VICPOL to invent the story it requires an awful lot of coppers to agree, (a) to the story and (b) to perjure themselves. Bad move for one's career. I, frankly, do not see that as a rational possibility . Too many involved, not all policewere from one station or section. Homicide, Missing Persons, Dog squad, SES, the public , Army cadets, etc.. Everybody has to agree to lie. Others may see it differently.

Or. .. his story is, he was, yes , at Mt Clear, and saw nothing. Heard nothing. Knows nothing.

And , therefore, there must be solid evidence that he was there, at Mt Clear, at 8am, on that warmish Sunday morning. Otherwise the whole thing falls apart. And equally, solid evidence that shows murder, and not accident, or manslaughter, or just bad luck.,

Option B. Was there, saw nothing, heard nothing, knows nothing, did nothing.

My bet is that he was partying the night before around Elwood Street (parked car there) and headed home to Scotsburn through Canadian the next morning.

That he and VicPol have returned there together indicates there’s possibly agreement on something (to confirm or negate) and finer details are being double checked. What could be conceded (due to irrefutable evidence) is his presence there on that morning.

All mine. I know nothing.

 

[Trooper]

Option B. Was there, saw nothing, heard nothing, knows nothing, did nothing.

My bet is that he was partying the night before around Elwood Street (parked car there) and headed home to Scotsburn through Canadian the next morning.

That he and VicPol have returned there together indicates there’s possibly agreement on something (to confirm or negate) and finer details are being double checked. What could be conceded (due to irrefutable evidence) is his presence there on that morning.

All mine. I know nothing.

Logistically.. and, I suppose realistically , he was fully clothed outside on the track, at that time. Hard to believe he was cavorting around in the nude , although it was a hot morning, she would have been startled (to say the least ) and backed away fast.. hard to consider that she went onto his parents property., for any reason.. so the chances are she was on the track and he was on the track. On foot? in his car?? just idling away hoping someone would appear?? hiding behind trees?? why? ...facing her? or heard her approaching and turned around?

These are things I want to know.

I agree that VICPOL have taken him back, to confirm, or dismiss some aspect of his story, which tells us that he is actually talking to police, or /and talking to his legal rep sensibly. Put it this way , words are being exchanged on some matter pertaining to the murder. They didn't go back to Mt Clear to check the wattle.

Me too, I know nuffink, ... I can only surmise.

 

[Trooper]

One benefit to him might just be to get out of remand for a while. See his home territory, smell the fresh air, listen to the birds, maybe see a kangaroo, feel the sunshine.

He has been in remand for over a year. It is possible that he is wasting police time, but they are hoping for a psychological reaction to wherever they take him and whatever they say or do while there.

imo

“It is certainly not abnormal, but I’m not surprised by this development. They are trying to talk to him to get as much information to help them with the investigation as possible,”

Top criminologist breaks down new development in Samantha Murphy case

The man accused of the 51-year-old mum’s murder has been pulled from jail and taken to Victorian bushland.

7news.com.au

That particular scenario has a strong probability.. Hard to knock back a nice outing to the country after a year and a half on remand, and nice to get to know the hard men from VICPOL , too, who can turn on the charm in these situations, it's all brother and matey and here, have my lighter stuff... All recorded , of course.

 

[Rocket333]

One benefit to him might just be to get out of remand for a while. See his home territory, smell the fresh air, listen to the birds, maybe see a kangaroo, feel the sunshine.

That particular scenario has a strong probability.. Hard to knock back a nice outing to the country after a year and a half on remand, and nice to get to know the hard men from VICPOL , too, who can turn on the charm in these situations, it's all brother and matey and here, have my lighter stuff... All recorded , of course.

But, but a country drive wouldn’t cut the mustard without a good enough promise of the parties, well the prosecution at least, gaining from the outing. On what basis do these things get approved and would Stephenson need to agree to go?

 

[Trooper]

But, but a country drive wouldn’t cut the mustard without a good enough promise of the parties, well the prosecution at least, gaining from the outing. On what basis do these things get approved and would Stephenson need to agree to go?

I am presuming the police requested the outing. ... it would have to have the approval of the DPP, and no objection from his barristers.. He'd be signed over to VICPOL , a lot of hoohah and hedging, to cover Dept of Corrections protocol.

If he requested it, whole different procedure. The request would have to come from his barristers, and it would have to have a solid and meaningful reason for (a) the journey and (b) the destination. In this case his barristers would accompany him at all times. DPP would have to approve, might even take a judges ruling...

Some how, I don't think it was his idea.

 

[Rocket333]

Logistically.. and, I suppose realistically , he was fully clothed outside on the track, at that time. Hard to believe he was cavorting around in the nude , although it was a hot morning, she would have been startled (to say the least ) and backed away fast.. hard to consider that she went onto his parents property., for any reason.. so the chances are she was on the track and he was on the track. On foot? in his car?? just idling away hoping someone would appear?? hiding behind trees?? why? ...facing her? or heard her approaching and turned around?
.

I wouldn’t find that hard to believe at all. Given the major bike stack just 4 months prior, he’d assumedly be very wary of being caught again, especially if there’s any other personal/legal/medical etc matters going on for him at that time too.

I’d say the chances of them being on the same track at the same time, on foot and in car, are ridiculously high. The how is probably a lot easier to resolve than the why, especially from his side of it. Sam would’ve just been jogging along the beaten track as usual.

All my pondering only.

 

[SouthAussie]

But, but a country drive wouldn’t cut the mustard without a good enough promise of the parties, well the prosecution at least, gaining from the outing. On what basis do these things get approved and would Stephenson need to agree to go?

I think a country drive might be tantalising for a young guy who has been locked up for so long. Get out and stretch his legs for a bit in the great outdoors.

PS hasn't spoken so far, as far as we know. No indication that getting to leave remand for a bit would make him talk. But it is worth a try.

I have been looking for the answer of whether he would need to agree to go. I think he might have to. Everything I can find points me to the "Views" section of the Evidence Act. And that Act says all parties must be given the "opportunity" to go to the viewing.

EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 53 Views

EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 54 Views to be evidence

 

[Rocket333]

I am presuming the police requested the outing. ... it would have to have the approval of the DPP, and no objection from his barristers.. He'd be signed over to VICPOL , a lot of hoohah and hedging, to cover Dept of Corrections protocol.

If he requested it, whole different procedure. The request would have to come from his barristers, and it would have to have a solid and meaningful reason for (a) the journey and (b) the destination. In this case his barristers would accompany him at all times. DPP would have to approve, might even take a judges ruling...

Some how, I don't think it was his idea.

I somehow don’t think it was his idea either. If the police requested it, then something is being checked. Something that he said?
Did he not cooperate the first time and is returning to play more nicely?

 

[Trooper]

I think a country drive might be tantalising .... PS hasn't spoken so far, as far as we know. No indication that getting to leave reform for a bit would make him talk. But it is worth a try.

I have been looking for the answer of whether he would need to agree to go. I think he might have to. Everything I can find points me to the "Views" section of the Evidence Act. And that Act says all parties must be given the "opportunity" to go to the viewing.

EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 53 Views

EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 54 Views to be evidence

It would take a court order to 'make ' him go, which would negate the purpose.. Remandees have all a citizens rights, except freedom to leave the premises.. It would be radical if it was refused by Corrections.. If he didn't want to go, then it becomes a bit more difficult. He can refuse, and is well within his purview. Usually at this point, VICPOL shrugs and walks away. They'd try another tack.

VICPOL can be very persuasive when necessary.. I am sure they have specialist 'persuaders' maybe a female perhaps, who does the persuading, in a soft and sweet voice.. Or some blokey , tradie , footy , toker looking bloke who calls him matey and holds out the chance of a cold beer at some stage of the trip..

They'd get him on that excursion, by hook or by crook, if it suited their purpose.

 

[SouthAussie]

Maybe they have been taking him to areas where there are mine shafts, and they have a police psychologist watching for a visible reaction, even a slight one.

Licking the lips, a side-eye, rubbing his arms, whatever is seen to be tell-tale of nervousness of (alleged) proximity to Sam.

imo

 

[SouthAussie]

It would take a court order to 'make ' him go, which would negate the purpose.. Remandees have all a citizens rights, except freedom to leave the premises.. It would be radical if it was refused by Corrections.. If he didn't want to go, then it becomes a bit more difficult. He can refuse, and is well within his purview. Usually at this point, VICPOL shrugs and walks away. They'd try another tack.

VICPOL can be very persuasive when necessary.. I am sure they have specialist 'persuaders' maybe a female perhaps, who does the persuading, in a soft and sweet voice.. Or some blokey , tradie , footy , toker looking bloke who calls him matey and holds out the chance of a cold beer at some stage of the trip..

They'd get him on that excursion, by hook or by crook, if it suited their purpose.

Yes, the Views sections of the Evidence Act are about orders by a judge.

 

[JLZ]

I am presuming the police requested the outing. ... it would have to have the approval of the DPP, and no objection from his barristers.. He'd be signed over to VICPOL , a lot of hoohah and hedging, to cover Dept of Corrections protocol.

If he requested it, whole different procedure. The request would have to come from his barristers, and it would have to have a solid and meaningful reason for (a) the journey and (b) the destination. In this case his barristers would accompany him at all times. DPP would have to approve, might even take a judges ruling...

Some how, I don't think it was his idea.

BBM. It has happened though that police convince the suspect that his own judgement is better than his legal advisers', and that he'd be a wimp not to strike out his own line. In the end, it's the suspect's decision, not his barristers', whether or not to hold by his right to silence.

 

[Spectrix]

I think a country drive might be tantalising for a young guy who has been locked up for so long. Get out and stretch his legs for a bit in the great outdoors.

PS hasn't spoken so far, as far as we know. No indication that getting to leave remand for a bit would make him talk. But it is worth a try.

I don't think it's known whether or not communication has been open. The suggestion by media shortly after his arrest was that he was "not cooperating", which is not necessarily the same as remaining silent.

 

[SouthAussie]

I don't think it's known whether or not communication has been open. The suggestion by media shortly after his arrest was that he was "not cooperating", which is not necessarily the same as remaining silent.

I have actually read he was staying silent after his arrest, and still further down the track.

In August 2024:
It is understood Stephenson has reserved his right to silence.

Bombshell update as Sam Murphy's alleged killer returns to court

The brief of evidence against the alleged killer of Ballarat mum Samantha Murphy has been described as 'unprecedented' in its size.

www.dailymail.co.uk

In May 2024:
It is understood Stephenson has continued to maintain his right to silence while awaiting his next court appearance in September.

Alleged killer of Samantha Murphy hit with fresh charges

Patrick Orren Stephenson has been hit with fresh charges of drink and drug driving after he allegedly crashed a motorbike in Ballarat last year.

www.dailymail.co.uk

In March 2024 after his arrest:


Accused Ballarat mum killer refusing to talk