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

[Scooby-Doo]

This is not quite true.. his defence will have to show that their man was no where near the forest that day. That all the tech stuff is voodoo and mumbojumbo woo woo woke nonsense that is made up in someone's back shed. If they can do that, your boy will walk it , but if not..........

He could have been asleep in his car or walked past, and the police have pinged him with Samantha running .

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.

The defence, would also want to see the home CCTV to verify she actually went for a run. Her phone may have, but we have seen no footage of her jogging out?

Midvale shopping area is right there plus schools amongst other businesses, I would imagine all CCTV would be checked, to see whether the accused would be a vehicle in and out of the area if he drove in and out of the area or him or anyone else entering/leaving on foot and returning later.

 

[Rocket333]

I was thinking along the very same lines Scoob. Also, Stephenson was probably a casual drug user and not an addict.

“Mr Tamanika had previously maintained the suppression was intended to protect Mr Stephenson's mental state, but also told the court his client had no mental health or drug issues.”

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/crime/shock-claims-about-samantha-murphys-alleged-killer-patrick-orren-stephenson-as-friends-claim-he-was-on-bender-prior-to-her-death/news-story/5d262521a14b0ff40107287138239936

“His lawyer David Tamanika told the court Mr Stephenson, a tradie, had no mental health or drug issues.”

UNMASKED: The early years of accused Murphy killer

Patrick Stephenson has been charged with the murder of Ballarat mum Samantha Murphy. Here’s what we know about the 22-year-old.

thenightly.com.au

No drug issues or problems that ever affected his functioning? That’s great, and it shouldn’t therefore appear in any defense.

 

[Trooper]

No drug issues or problems that ever affected his functioning? That’s great, and it shouldn’t therefore appear in any defense.

That will cut down the time of the trial to days, if so !! bonus......

 

[HoneyBunOne]

Stephenson's first court appearance​

On Thursday, the court heard Stephenson, a tradesman, did not suffer from any drug problems or mental health conditions.

Cops make major move in Sam Murphy murder investigation

The man charged with the murder of Ballarat mother of three Samantha Murphy is the son of a former AFL footballer.

www.dailymail.co.uk

In regards to the drug and mental health issues, we now we know that either:

A) His lawyer lied, or more likely just carefully worded, the response.
B) His lawyer was unaware of any potential problems at that point.
C) PS did not have a PROBLEM with drugs. He could be seen as a casual user, and that's all. Still managing to function and not been seen as addicted.
D) PS had no DIAGNOSED mental health conditions.

Of course, if they want to pivot and use those 2 things as excuses as to why PS (allegedly) did what he did, then I'm sure it will be the usual sob story we've heard a million times over from others. Yawn.

 

[SouthAussie]

How can he have "little memory of the crash due to head injuries", yet only have "mild head trauma"? They don't seem to gel to me.
I think she meant to say "he has little memory of the accident because he was paraletic and off his face".

Major update on Sam Murphy's alleged killer as he appears in court

The man accused of murdering Ballarat mum Samantha Murphy has made a sensational appearance in court.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I have only just read any articles about this driving incident. Have just been reading along here.

I think you are right. Has little memory of it because he was blotto. Three times the legal alcohol limit, traces of MDMA. It is bad enough driving a 4-wheeled vehicle while inebriated let alone a 2-wheeled vehicle.

I also don't think his "minor head injuries" will amount to a potential TBI kind of defence in Sam's alleged murder. It is not as if they are claiming that he had a severe concussion. Might have scraped his face a bit when the bike slid out from under him as he was turning the corner in the wet conditions. Presumably he was wearing a helmet.

Samantha Murphy’s alleged killer fined over drug-driving offences

Patrick Stephenson has been convicted over a drunken motorcycle crash that occurred months before the Ballarat mother’s alleged murder.

www.theage.com.au

 

[SouthAussie]

What “damaged property” could they be referring to? Was physical evidence (ie shards of glass, bits of plastic, scraps of clothing material etc) found at the scene after all? What was also found at the dam?

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/unfathomable-new-claim-in-sam-murphy-case/news-story/37583b9f002648a938925d7830bf18e0

Maybe they were speaking of a damaged phone (Sam's)? Because they knew it was now off-air and hadn't yet discovered what he had done with it.

 

[Bats]

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

They need to also prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that nobody else was there.

How can they do that? Just because no other phone pinged?

Maybe the other person didn't carry a phone.

I see your point Scoobs though the prosecution will only be focused on the charge layed against the accused.

If there was someone else present, the focus will still be on the charge(s) layed against the accused. They won't need to prove there was no one else present. Though, if there were agreed facts that put someone else at the crime scene, the prosecution will certainly need to cover that off.

If the dpp could see there was no evidence to distinguish whether person A committed the crime or if it were person B, then it's likely it wouldn't go to trial.

 

[SouthAussie]

If the dpp could see there was no evidence to distinguish whether person A committed the crime or if it were person B, then it's likely it wouldn't go to trial.

Or they would both be going to trial. There is a "catch-all" provision in Victoria.

• If an offence is committed, a person who is involved in the commission of the offence is taken to have committed the offence and is liable for the maximum penalty for that offence.
• A person is not taken to have committed an offence if the person withdraws from the offence.

This means that if a person is proven to have in any way participated in the commission of the offence, they have criminal liability and are subject to the same penalties as the principal offender.

The principal offender does not need to be found guilty of the offence in order for another person to be found guilty of being involved under Section 324.

Who Has Criminal Liability? (Vic) - Go To Court

When a crime is committed by more than one person, everyone involved can be held responsible. In 2014 the criminal liability of persons involved in the commission of offences was codified in Sections 323 to 324C of the Crimes Act 1958.

www.gotocourt.com.au

 

[Rocket333]

Maybe they were speaking of a damaged phone (Sam's)? Because they knew it was now off-air and hadn't yet discovered what he had done with it.

Quite possible. I was thinking that if there was the opportunity, I’m sure Sam would have fought back, and perhaps ripped his shirt or damaged some personal belonging or even his vehicle (kicked in a light etc) and a remnant was left on the ground or visible in cctv received. I’m sure there’s a ton of witnesses, and even one or two who actually saw her heading off on her run or somewhere along her run. It’s Summer and people are out and about at 7am, even if just in their yards or streets. I was also thinking along the lines of the scratches on Baden-Clay’s face.

 

[Trooper]

I see your point Scoobs though the prosecution will only be focused on the charge layed against the accused.

If there was someone else present, the focus will still be on the charge(s) layed against the accused. They won't need to prove there was no one else present. Though, if there were agreed facts that put someone else at the crime scene, the prosecution will certainly need to cover that off.

If the dpp could see there was no evidence to distinguish whether person A committed the crime or if it were person B, then it's likely it wouldn't go to trial.

Can you imagine the enormous amount of wasted time, energy, resources, people, money etc that goes with a trial if all the defence had to say is that it could have been someone else that committed the crime?

Last year, in Victoria, alone, just Victoria, 2024, there were 12 sentences meted out for murder in the Supreme Court of Vic... along with 10 for manslaughter, and every one of those killers said someone else did it. !

'I was no where near him'..' I wasn't driving'... 'I think I was in Adelaide'...and so on..

Recent sentences

Summarising sentences from the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria

www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au

I just want to add, with no added comment, that each and all of those sentences, both for murder, and for manslaughter, and oddly, I thought, not the usual crime in AU, a couple of kidnappings, were all blokes. .... make of that what you will........

 

[Rocket333]

Last year, in Victoria, alone, just Victoria, 2024, there were 12 sentences meted out for murder in the Supreme Court of Vic... along with 10 for manslaughter, and everyone of those killers said someone else did it. !

'I was no where near him'..' I wasn't driving'... 'I think I was in Adelaide'...and so on..

Recent sentences

Summarising sentences from the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria

www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au

I just want to add, with no added comment, that each of those sentences, both for murder, and for manslaughter, and oddly, I thought, not the usual crime in AU, a couple of kidnappings, were all blokes. .... make of that what you will........

Well that’s a fascinating read Troops - thanks!
DPP V KIDD [2024] VSC 458 mentions cannabis psychosis, “two psychiatrists, commissioned by the Crown and the defence respectively, gave evidence casting serious doubt on whether, in the context of a cannabis-induced psychosis Mr Kidd was suffering at the time, he possessed murderous intent at the time of the killing.

And this is just an awful truth:

DPP V LINDEMANN [2024] VSC 220

“The Court of Appeal noted a decade ago that ‘the shameful truth is that domestic violence is the leading cause of illness, disability and death among Victorian women aged between 15 and 44.’ Tragically, that remains the case today.”

 

[SouthAussie]

Any chance that is an Apple watch that PS is wearing in this pic (left arm)? Or any other watch that provides health data, because there are others.

Just wondering if the police have health data from Sam's watch showing her being attacked and dying, and corresponding data from PS' watch showing signs of heightened activity at the same time.

And perhaps location services places him at the same place, at the same time.

Inside hideout where Samantha Murphy's accused killer was arrested

The rural property where Samantha Murphy's alleged killer allegedly hid out during a month long search is on the market.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Trooper]

Well that’s a fascinating read Troops - thanks!
DPP V KIDD [2024] VSC 458 mentions cannabis psychosis, “two psychiatrists, commissioned by the Crown and the defence respectively, gave evidence casting serious doubt on whether, in the context of a cannabis-induced psychosis Mr Kidd was suffering at the time, he possessed murderous intent at the time of the killing.

And this is just an awful truth:

DPP V LINDEMANN [2024] VSC 220

“The Court of Appeal noted a decade ago that ‘the shameful truth is that domestic violence is the leading cause of illness, disability and death among Victorian women aged between 15 and 44.’ Tragically, that remains the case today.”

It is always interesting when the defence hauls in the psychs, and then the State hauls in their psychs, and it gets down to a tooth and claw business over who is most qualified, and 100% it''s going to be the Prosecutors bloke , mainly because they have no dog in the fight, their expertise is not for sale.

But it would be an awful, awful job... I always hope they have a nice little kelpie at home to sit with when they get off the stand ... to delve into some of those minds, staring into the abyss, and the abyss staring back at you,, the horror.

 

[Rocket333]

Any chance that is an Apple watch that PS is wearing in this pic (left arm)? Or any other watch that provides health data, because there are others.

Just wondering if the police have health data from Sam's watch showing her being attacked and dying, and corresponding data from PS' watch showing signs of heightened activity at the same time.

And perhaps location services places him at the same place, at the same time.

View attachment 558438

Inside hideout where Samantha Murphy's accused killer was arrested

The rural property where Samantha Murphy's alleged killer allegedly hid out during a month long search is on the market.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Great questions & thinking SA. He’s wearing an analogue in that party clip but may well have had both.
Begs the question, if you are setting out to cause harm, why would you have trackers (phone & watch) with you?

 

[Rocket333]

The psychiatrist looks into the abyss and the family lives with the abyss. I wonder what the PS trial will indicate in terms of his history.

I was hoping we’d get a peek into the abyss at the recent bike stack conviction, but instead we were all assured that his family and gf still support him, his boss still liked him, he’s injured, he was so wasted that he had no recollection of flying off the bike and laying like a toad on the road, he is able to listen to Moya, and that he can plead guilty (when backed into a corner). Maybe there’s no abyss or it isn’t very deep. Maybe he just struggles with insecurity and powerlessness and his remedy is to self medicate and be a big arse bully to those he thinks he has power over.
Btw, he’s born in July, so you might be spot on with your astro report.

 

[Mandala]

Great questions & thinking SA. He’s wearing an analogue in that party clip but may well have had both.
Begs the question, if you are setting out to cause harm, why would you have trackers (phone & watch) with you?

IMO I don’t think he set out to cause harm. I don’t think this was premeditated. I think he was off his face on drugs/alcohol and lost control for whatever reason when he crossed paths with Samantha. Something triggered him.

 

[Dotta]

IMO I don’t think he set out to cause harm. I don’t think this was premeditated. I think he was off his face on drugs/alcohol and lost control for whatever reason when he crossed paths with Samantha. Something triggered him.

This is my opinion too.

He was a ticking bomb IMO.

Whoever and at whatever time
might have become the victim of his allegedly rampant addictions and wild behaviour.

Nobody seemed to have control over him.
Even the painful bike accident with a hospital stay as a result
didn't seem to teach him anything.

And even then
he was on some kind of probation for earlier acts.

If not Samantha,
somebody else might have met tragic end sooner or later.
Anything could be a trigger.

JMO

 

[Ron Jeremy]

IMO I don’t think he set out to cause harm. I don’t think this was premeditated. I think he was off his face on drugs/alcohol and lost control for whatever reason when he crossed paths with Samantha. Something triggered him.

Something triggered him alright..pre meditated is debatable insofar as Sam was concerned, VICPOL would have their ducks in a row. From previous posts and reading the accused has had a pretty chequered past..there is some level of escalation in behaviour from this bloke.

Having played and coached AFL for over 40 years, I don’t believe a person his age would be suffering form CTE that would in anyway impair his judgement.. this disease comes on later in life, though I stand to be corrected.

IMO he acted alone as well… there is no one else involved with this, either during or after the event. I would be loath in under estimating what VICPOL have on the accused.

IMHO of course

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

It seems members are ignoring Moderator and Admin warnings about sub judice. That puts this entire discussion in jeopardy just because those members are ignoring not only us but Australian judiciary as well.

Members need to pay attention, because it has happened in the past that Australian officials contacted us with a request that a discussion be removed.

Sub judice is actually pretty simple. Tons of members have no difficulty posting in accordance with it, so members who blatantly post in violation of our instruction may receive a permanent Thread Reply Ban.

My next post following this one will be our standard post about sub judice. We ask that you read it and "Like" it to indicate you have read it.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN WARNING

In Australia, the moment a person is under arrest, and throughout the entire judicial process up to appeal, sub judice comes into effect.

Sub judice is covered under Contempt of Court. If a post is considered sub judice by Mods or Admin it will be removed.

Any member who continues to post sub judice will be permanently banned from the discussion.

If a post includes any of the following, it is sub judice.

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.


Reference:

10. Sub judice contempt: restricting the publication of prejudicial information - Victorian Law Reform Commission

Overview • The law protects a person’s right to a fair hearing by preventing people from publishing information that may improperly influence a jury or witness. This is known as sub judice contempt. • It is increasingly difficult to protect jurors from information in an online age. There should...

www.lawreform.vic.gov.au