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

[confused.mp3]

When does the trial starts? I thought it was soon, but I haven't seen anything about it

“Mr Stephenson is scheduled to face the Supreme Court on April 8, 2026, charged with murdering Ms Murphy.”

Trial date set for Patrick Stephenson, accused of killing Samantha Murphy

 

[vicagi23]

When does the trial starts? I thought it was soon, but I haven't seen anything about it

Major update in case of missing Victorian mother Samantha Murphy

The 51-year-old has been missing since February 2024 after going for a run.

7news-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[vicagi23]

When does the trial starts? I thought it was soon, but I haven't seen anything about it

Major update in case of missing Victorian mother Samantha Murphy

The 51-year-old has been missing since February 2024 after going for a run.

7news-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org

Sorry, wrong link

 

[Lucy.D]

‘Broken’ after the deaths of three women, Ballarat embarks on an Australian-first trial to combat gender-based violence

School principal says young people ‘want things to change’ as city attempts to shift attitudes and behaviours that drive violence

www.theguardian.com

The trial is expected to take about 6 weeks, so I'm assuming the number of witnesses for the prosecution could total around 50.
If is trying to be found not guilty, then I would assume he would also have witnesses and not just be relying on the DPP not having a watertight case against him.

 

[Lucy.D]

Has anyone seen another case where a person pleads not guilty and takes LE to the scene of the crime before the trial starts like this accused has done perhaps twice now?

 

[Doesitmakesense]

Has anyone seen another case where a person pleads not guilty and takes LE to the scene of the crime before the trial starts like this accused has done perhaps twice now?

I don't know if it was PS taking LE so much, more LE taking PS and trying to get a reaction imo

 

[Lucy.D]

I don't know if it was PS taking LE so much, more LE taking PS and trying to get a reaction imo

I'm sorry @Doesitmakesense, I wasn't making myself clear (my new sunglasses make it difficult to see the keyboard).
I should have said PS was with LE possibly twice at Samantha's search site.
I can understand that police can gain a lot from that, but what could PS gain and has it ever happened before in another case?

 

[Melt71]

I'm sorry @Doesitmakesense, I wasn't making myself clear (my new sunglasses make it difficult to see the keyboard).
I should have said PS was with LE possibly twice at Samantha's search site.
I can understand that police can gain a lot from that, but what could PS gain and has it ever happened before in another case?

Speaking only the the last part of your question:

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

Barr questioned whether it’s a “normal thing” to take someone out of custody to an alleged crime scene.

“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,” Mallett said.

 

[Lucy.D]

Speaking only the the last part of your question:

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

Barr questioned whether it’s a “normal thing” to take someone out of custody to an alleged crime scene.

“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,” Mallett said.

It's certainly not abnormal for police to try many strategic ways to get an alleged murderer to come clean, make a mistake or something like that.
But I have never heard of any person who has pleaded not guilty to murder to be with police at the site of the search not once, but twice. That is totally abnormal.
If police wanted extra info on top of the allegedly mammoth amount they already have then they should not have arrested and charged the accused so quickly IMO
The accused chose to go straight to trial which could suggest anything. The only reason why I think he went with police (or he took them for an outing or whatever) to the site was perhaps a legal move by him towards a plea bargain where he would plead guilty to a lesser charge.
But police have been convinced from the outset the accused deliberately murdered Samantha and if they have that evidence and more from searches since then why would they consent to the accused going to jail for a lesser charge.
And if there's not enough evidence to convince the court the accused murdered Samantha then what is this enormous volume of evidence they have against him all about.
It will all certainly come out in the trial next year if police actually do have enough evidence to sustain a murder charge, but IMO I don't believe they do.

 

[Kemug]

Maybe he is going to plead self defence?!

 

[Bats]

It's certainly not abnormal for police to try many strategic ways to get an alleged murderer to come clean, make a mistake or something like that.
But I have never heard of any person who has pleaded not guilty to murder to be with police at the site of the search not once, but twice. That is totally abnormal.
If police wanted extra info on top of the allegedly mammoth amount they already have then they should not have arrested and charged the accused so quickly IMO
The accused chose to go straight to trial which could suggest anything. The only reason why I think he went with police (or he took them for an outing or whatever) to the site was perhaps a legal move by him towards a plea bargain where he would plead guilty to a lesser charge.
But police have been convinced from the outset the accused deliberately murdered Samantha and if they have that evidence and more from searches since then why would they consent to the accused going to jail for a lesser charge.
And if there's not enough evidence to convince the court the accused murdered Samantha then what is this enormous volume of evidence they have against him all about.
It will all certainly come out in the trial next year if police actually do have enough evidence to sustain a murder charge, but IMO I don't believe they do.

I believe the Police took Erin Patterson, who pleaded not guilty, to some of the areas she said she may have brought mushrooms from.

In this case, there is no way he's going to be able to bargain for a lesser charge without the location of Samantha's body and discovery of remains, in my opinion. I think for the Police or prosecution, it may just be an opportunity for them to understand his story (if he's telling one), in a similar way to taking Erin to various grocery stores. If part of PS's statement is "x" then it would be prudent for investigators to make sure they have looked into that evidence, regardless of whether it makes no sense to their case. Otherwise, a strong argument for his team would be something like, "...investigators didn't even look into it".

I have no doubt the prosecution will have all their ducks in a row.

MOO

 

[Cedars]

It's certainly not abnormal for police to try many strategic ways to get an alleged murderer to come clean, make a mistake or something like that.
But I have never heard of any person who has pleaded not guilty to murder to be with police at the site of the search not once, but twice. That is totally abnormal.
If police wanted extra info on top of the allegedly mammoth amount they already have then they should not have arrested and charged the accused so quickly IMO
The accused chose to go straight to trial which could suggest anything. The only reason why I think he went with police (or he took them for an outing or whatever) to the site was perhaps a legal move by him towards a plea bargain where he would plead guilty to a lesser charge.
But police have been convinced from the outset the accused deliberately murdered Samantha and if they have that evidence and more from searches since then why would they consent to the accused going to jail for a lesser charge.
And if there's not enough evidence to convince the court the accused murdered Samantha then what is this enormous volume of evidence they have against him all about.
It will all certainly come out in the trial next year if police actually do have enough evidence to sustain a murder charge, but IMO I don't believe they do.

I agree except that it may not be so much about their case against him, but more about locating Samantha's body, just for the sake of locating her remains and resolving the mystery of where they are.

JMO

 

[Lucy.D]

I agree except that it may not be so much about their case against him, but more about locating Samantha's body, just for the sake of locating her remains and resolving the mystery of where they are.

JMO

It may be the case that the accused doesn't know where Samantha's body is and he agreed to go with police to the site (but twice, why would that be necessary) to show them the site and his version of events.
Police have stuck to their claim the accused deliberately murdered Samantha and haven't reduced the charge to manslaughter or careless driving causing death, even after they now probably know what the accused will be alleging what happened in the trial next year.
Her phone must have last pinged where she died and that's not where he body is.
Police would know if there were fibres/DNA of Samantha in the accused car.
If that evidence isn't in his car then someone else may have moved Samantha. I think police have always suspected an accomplice and there must be something that made them suspect that IMO
It will be interesting at the trial to see whose case was strengthened by the accused attending the site a year or so after Samantha went missing.
Courts have heard many times an accused simply state he didn't know what he hit with his car and kept driving.

 

[acutename]

It's certainly not abnormal for police to try many strategic ways to get an alleged murderer to come clean, make a mistake or something like that.
But I have never heard of any person who has pleaded not guilty to murder to be with police at the site of the search not once, but twice. That is totally abnormal.
If police wanted extra info on top of the allegedly mammoth amount they already have then they should not have arrested and charged the accused so quickly IMO
The accused chose to go straight to trial which could suggest anything. The only reason why I think he went with police (or he took them for an outing or whatever) to the site was perhaps a legal move by him towards a plea bargain where he would plead guilty to a lesser charge.
But police have been convinced from the outset the accused deliberately murdered Samantha and if they have that evidence and more from searches since then why would they consent to the accused going to jail for a lesser charge.
And if there's not enough evidence to convince the court the accused murdered Samantha then what is this enormous volume of evidence they have against him all about.
It will all certainly come out in the trial next year if police actually do have enough evidence to sustain a murder charge, but IMO I don't believe they do.

For people familiar with AUS law, since he is an accused, does he have to agree to go to this location, or can they just drive him around as part of "being in custody?" and does his counsel go too?

 

[Cedars]

he agreed to go with police to the site (but twice, why would that be necessary) to show them the site and his version of events...they now probably know what the accused will be alleging what happened in the trial next year...Courts have heard many times an accused simply state he didn't know what he hit with his car and kept driving.

I guess there just aren't cases in Aus where an accused doesn't offer any alternate explanation, but just pleads not guilty...?

Meaning, it is up to the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It isn't the obligation of the accused to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

JMO

 

[Dotta]

I cannot fathom that poor Samantha hasn't been found yet
Will her family ever get the chance to bury her properly?

And why is the trial taking place in so distant future?
In 2026?
So much time has passed since Samantha vanished.

 

[BreakingNews]

I cannot fathom that poor Samantha hasn't been found yet
Will her family ever get the chance to bury her properly?

And why is the trial taking place in so distant future?
In 2026?
So much time has passed since Samantha vanished.

And this case has been fast tracked.

 

[Lucy.D]

I guess there just aren't cases in Aus where an accused doesn't offer any alternate explanation, but just pleads not guilty...?

Meaning, it is up to the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It isn't the obligation of the accused to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

JMO

The accused certainly wouldn't want to go on an outing with police and during that trip prove a case of murder against him.
He would be better off to stay in remand and as you say let them prove he murdered Samantha.
So what in your opinion could be the reason for the accused attending the site?
Surely, he would take his lawyer along for the ride(s) and it would be better for the accused if he says he doesn't know where the body is.
The accused is not having a committal hearing which made the process faster but the amount of evidence the police had to wade through slowed it down, but 2 years getting to trial from being charged is pretty normal.

 

[Cedars]

The accused certainly wouldn't want to go on an outing with police and during that trip prove a case of murder against him.
He would be better off to stay in remand and as you say let them prove he murdered Samantha.
So what in your opinion could be the reason for the accused attending the site?

I can only think of two things - either he's just happy to get an outing, and isn't concerned he'll give anything away - or they're preparing an Agreed Statement of Facts about something, just to expedite the trial presentation. Sometimes that makes the defense look good: eg, "we're not denying that's his vehicle on CCTV, he was driving there, but that doesn't mean he killed anyone..."

ETA: I'm always leery about how things are being reported - was it really the exact location that's believed to be the crime scene, or is it just the general area...

JMO

 

[Rocket333]

I can only think of two things - either he's just happy to get an outing, and isn't concerned he'll give anything away - or they're preparing an Agreed Statement of Facts about something, just to expedite the trial presentation. Sometimes that makes the defense look good: eg, "we're not denying that's his vehicle on CCTV, he was driving there, but that doesn't mean he killed anyone..."

ETA: I'm always leery about how things are being reported - was it really the exact location that's believed to be the crime scene, or is it just the general area...

JMO

Stephenson was escorted to both Canadian and Buninyong which implies the police has location based evidence placing him in both locations during Samantha’s disappearance. At the time of his committal mention hearing he was given 14 days to declare whether he intended to rely on an alibi and we don’t know if he came up with one or not. I suspect he checked out the unprecedented volume of evidence and hatched a non-criminal rationale for being at both places. His return to Canadian and Buninyong with the police suggests he was either asked to go or he volunteered to go in order to retrace steps and demonstrate his location based claims.

My thoughts only.