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

[Spectrix]

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

I recall the police being oddly specific about the both the time and the location of SM's death. I suspect that might be because her apple health data showed her location and (for example) her heart stopping. Canadian Forest Mt Clear was the location.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

I recall the police being oddly specific about the both the time and the location of SM's death. I suspect that might be because her apple health data showed her location and (for example) her heart stopping. Canadian Forest Mt Clear was the location.

I agree. I think her watch told the story as best it could, but clearly has not lead to her body for whatever reason.

 

[Spectrix]

I agree. I think her watch told the story as best it could, but clearly has not lead to her body for whatever reason.

I'm not sure if her watch was a cellular version, perhaps it was linked only to her phone, which somehow made its way into a dam.
That in itself is another peculiar thing...

Samantha went missing on February 4, 2024.
Her phone was "discovered" on May 29, 2024. I say "discovered" because the police made a song and dance about the phone. News choppers circling overhead, cops hugging each other in glee, and later announcing that the phone was in perfect working order.
Yet, Victoria Police have been very secretive about other parts of the investigation.

So my question is, did they find the phone earlier, and then pretended to suddenly discover in the dam four months later - perhaps hoping to invoke a reaction from someone involved?

 

[Lucy.D]

I'm not sure if her watch was a cellular version, perhaps it was linked only to her phone, which somehow made its way into a dam.
That in itself is another peculiar thing...

Samantha went missing on February 4, 2024.
Her phone was "discovered" on May 29, 2024. I say "discovered" because the police made a song and dance about the phone. News choppers circling overhead, cops hugging each other in glee, and later announcing that the phone was in perfect working order.
Yet, Victoria Police have been very secretive about other parts of the investigation.

So my question is, did they find the phone earlier, and then pretended to suddenly discover in the dam four months later - perhaps hoping to invoke a reaction from someone involved?

Yes I think that's the story. Police must think the accused had help possibly in transporting Samantha's body.
I can believe the accused would go to the site where possibly Samantha was hit with his car if that's what happened and that's where the last pings with her phone or watch could have been.
But I'd be surprised if the accused went to a different location on the second visit to possibly where Samantha was taken because I don't think he would want her to be found IMO.
If the accused had an accomplice and wanted to save himself possibly 10 years in prison, then he should be IMO confessing to what exactly happened and dob in his helper if he had one and not go to trial.
A good lawyer would get him a good plea bargain. That's if he is guilty of something to do with Samantha's disappearance of course.

 

[touch]

Police must think the accused had help possibly in transporting Samantha's body.

The Police said they believe he acted alone:

Chief Commissioner Patton said the police would allege Mr Stephenson acted alone.

source

 

[Lucy.D]

The Police said they believe he acted alone:

source

Interesting. I wonder why they made such a big deal of Samantha's phone being found when they've got the one and only person involved in the disappearance safely locked up with police saying months beforehand that the accused performed a deliberate act of murdering Samantha and they've got mountains of evidence against him which basically delayed the trial.

 

[Bats]

Interesting. I wonder why they made such a big deal of Samantha's phone being found when they've got the one and only person involved in the disappearance safely locked up with police saying months beforehand that the accused performed a deliberate act of murdering Samantha and they've got mountains of evidence against him which basically delayed the trial.

I think that since this is an investigation into a missing person, it is a big deal to find some belongings of that missing person.

Also, there has been a huge public interest for Samantha allegedly being murdered.

 

[Lucy.D]

I think that since this is an investigation into a missing person, it is a big deal to find some belongings of that missing person.

Also, there has been a huge public interest for Samantha allegedly being murdered.

Yes it is a big deal to find something belonging to Samantha, especially her phone that was still in good working order and may have held vital information.
And yes there is a lot of interest in her disappearance.
I would say there is even more interest and police have spent possibly 25 times the amount of money on trying to find fugitive Dezi Freeman.
But have they revealed anything about what they have found after a month of searching for Freeman in the bush and all over the place...no not a word.
And that's because it is vital in finding Freeman that information isn't given to the public that they may be close to finding him.
But in Samantha's case and this is MOO they made a big song and dance about finding the phone, what it was and that it was working just fine, not to inform the public but to put pressure on anyone involved in Samantha's disappearance in the hope they will make a mistake like camper killer Greg Lynn did in vaguely similar circumstances.
I agree with police they have to attempt to outsmart criminals and I believe the phone business was one of those attempts.
I could be wrong and finding the phone as you say was a big deal and so let everyone know it was found.
Or I could be right and they already knew nothing was on the phone and it was simply a ploy to either extract a confession from someone they had in custody, or to get someone who helped in her disappearance to come out into the open.
One of the very few brilliant bits of police work I've heard about was when they caught Brett Peter Cowan in a sting. The only criticism I would make on that operation was that it was almost a decade after Cowan murdered a 13 year old boy and from his history Cowan should have been under suspicion much earlier.

 

[Bats]

Yes it is a big deal to find something belonging to Samantha, especially her phone that was still in good working order and may have held vital information.
And yes there is a lot of interest in her disappearance.
I would say there is even more interest and police have spent possibly 25 times the amount of money on trying to find fugitive Dezi Freeman.
But have they revealed anything about what they have found after a month of searching for Freeman in the bush and all over the place...no not a word.
And that's because it is vital in finding Freeman that information isn't given to the public that they may be close to finding him.
But in Samantha's case and this is MOO they made a big song and dance about finding the phone, what it was and that it was working just fine, not to inform the public but to put pressure on anyone involved in Samantha's disappearance in the hope they will make a mistake like camper killer Greg Lynn did in vaguely similar circumstances.
I agree with police they have to attempt to outsmart criminals and I believe the phone business was one of those attempts.
I could be wrong and finding the phone as you say was a big deal and so let everyone know it was found.
Or I could be right and they already knew nothing was on the phone and it was simply a ploy to either extract a confession from someone they had in custody, or to get someone who helped in her disappearance to come out into the open.
One of the very few brilliant bits of police work I've heard about was when they caught Brett Peter Cowan in a sting. The only criticism I would make on that operation was that it was almost a decade after Cowan murdered a 13 year old boy and from his history Cowan should have been under suspicion much earlier.

In my opinion, from an investigation perspective, there is a large difference between releasing/withholding information for a victim/missing person as opposed to an alleged criminal.
Personally, I believe the investigators telling the public they have found Samantha's phone wasn't a tactic to lure any other persons that may have been involved but simply to keep the public informed about the circumstances around her disappearance. Can you imagine if they'd found some of her clothing but didn't release that information to the public?

With regards to Filby, Cowan and Lynn, they are/were all suspects of committing murder and investigations into their allegations are unsurprisingly drip fed to the community. The community often have no idea who are suspects in criminal investigations.

There's very good reason to use 'tactics' to catch alleged criminals.
Using 'tactics' on known victims is treading over very rocky ethical and legal grounds.

MOO

 

[Kemug]

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 suppose it's possible if he was dobbing in an accomplice.

 

[Kemug]

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.

Yes, it is hard waiting so long for the trial, and to see justice delivered. And even then, there won't be closure for Samantha's family until/unless her body is found. They could, and maybe have, create a memorial to her somewhere. It might help.

 

[Bats]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Using 'tactics' on a victim/missing person to catch a suspect...

Versus

Using 'tactics' on a suspect to help find a missing person....

These are two very different scenarios.

In my opinion, there is no way the police investigators can withhold information about, in this case, finding Samantha's phone. Think of the scenario. "Hey Mr Murphy, we've actually found some of Sam's clothing but we can't let you tell anyone because we're in the middle of a sting". There is just no way this could happen.
It would be the same if they had identified Samantha after she went missing, in some CCTV footage. There is just no way the investigators can withhold that sort of information from the public.

Catching a suspect, on the other hand, is a totally different scenario.

Hypothetically, If the phone they found wasn't actually Samantha's but was part of a sting, then that's a different story. That's just the investigator's craft.

 

[Kemug]

Do we actually know for certain 100% that it really was Samantha's phone that was found? We seem to think that the police jubilation upon finding it may have been an act - so how do we know that the whole thing wasn't an act?

 

[Kemug]

Hypothetically, If the phone they found wasn't actually Samantha's but was part of a sting, then that's a different story. That's just the investigator's craft.

RSBM
Snap!!

 

[Dotta]

What do you mean?

The phone found was Samantha's.
There were her credit cards.
Her driving licence in the phone case.

Police's "jubilation" seems natural to me.

 

[Lucy.D]

What do you mean?

The phone found was Samantha's.
There were her credit cards.
Her driving licence in the phone case.

Police's "jubilation" is natural to me.

I don't think anyone's doubting it was Samantha's phone.
I believe it was put there by police to entice someone to get jumpy and make a mistake, while just about everyone else would say of course it was Samantha's phone and they had only just found above the water mark in the dam and it just happened that every man and his dog from the media were present to see it happen, whereas at the site visits by the accused for example nobody is there to watch or know exactly where the site locations were exactly.

 

[Bats]

What do you mean?

The phone found was Samantha's.
There were her credit cards.
Her driving licence in the phone case.

Police's "jubilation" seems natural to me.

Yes agreed. I certainly am not suggesting the phone wasn't Samantha's. I was just trying make a point.

Totally agree with you @Dotta . I feel the police were just very happy to find some of her belongings.

 

[Cedars]

Do we actually know for certain 100% that it really was Samantha's phone that was found? We seem to think that the police jubilation upon finding it may have been an act - so how do we know that the whole thing wasn't an act?

IMO, they found it because it dried enough to show up on the family's 'find my phone' app. However, that is just my speculation on how they zeroed in on it, after so much time.

 

[Cedars]

Using 'tactics' on a victim/missing person to catch a suspect...

Versus

Using 'tactics' on a suspect to help find a missing person....

These are two very different scenarios.

In my opinion, there is no way the police investigators can withhold information about, in this case, finding Samantha's phone. Think of the scenario. "Hey Mr Murphy, we've actually found some of Sam's clothing but we can't let you tell anyone because we're in the middle of a sting". There is just no way this could happen.
It would be the same if they had identified Samantha after she went missing, in some CCTV footage. There is just no way the investigators can withhold that sort of information from the public.

Catching a suspect, on the other hand, is a totally different scenario.

Hypothetically, If the phone they found wasn't actually Samantha's but was part of a sting, then that's a different story. That's just the investigator's craft.

Plus, I have never heard of a sting operation that was staged on public TV, thereby tricking the general public and encouraging them to believe police are liars.

Sting operations are conducted in private and an undercover officer presents themselves as a criminal - such as wanting to buy drugs, pretending to be a hit man for hire, or a gang leader inviting the suspect to tell all in exchange for membership in the gang. Police never go undercover as an honest person trying to gain the friendship and trust of a suspect...that could be entrapment and thrown out of court.

Police forces in first world countries uphold the law, they don't undermine it. Individual officers may go off course, but not a whole force. Any other view, IMO, is clearly coming from a conspiracy mindset

Jmo

 

[Lucy.D]

I think Bats and I were both referring to the phone as a tactic. Bats saying the phone was no tactic and me saying it was a tactic.

And speaking for Bats once again which I shouldn't do of course, I'd say Bats would agree with you that no sting operation has been visible because as you say they are kept undercover. In fact stings I'm sure are very dangerous. You are dealing with a person known to commit a crime and police basically use it to gain a confession. They are not out to entice someone into committing a crime which they wouldn't normally do.

In Samantha's case I believe there may will be a sting operation in effect. Someone referred in an earlier post that police has said on at least two occasions the accused acted alone. It may only me be thinking that is not the case and the police are using tactics like finding the phone and perhaps a possible sting going on to entice someone out into the open. I believe offering a reward is also a good way of doing that - it entices someone out in the open by them getting dobbed in.

If the accused is responsible for Samantha's death, then at this stage he is the only person who knows if someone else was involved or not and I would hope he told police everything he knows in his statement, interviews and trips to the search area.
I know I wouldn't be going to jail for an extra 10 years just to hide the fact I had an accomplice. Why would anyone do that?