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

[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?

 

[BreakingNews]

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?

I guess police are under no obligation to tell the public anything. When they do, it is probably a tactic or in the public's best interest to know.

 

[BreakingNews]

DBM duplicate

 

[Kemug]

I would think that he must have really panicked at some point - either immediately, or soon after. I wonder how long it lasted. Maybe he still is panicking (I sure would be.) It seems very likely that in his panic he called someone to come and help. But maybe just something like "Hey mate, can I come and borrow your truck?" I also wonder if he made any aborted calls, eg to his father. I don't think we have his phone, do we?

 

[Lucy.D]

I would think that he must have really panicked at some point - either immediately, or soon after. I wonder how long it lasted. Maybe he still is panicking (I sure would be.) It seems very likely that in his panic he called someone to come and help. But maybe just something like "Hey mate, can I come and borrow your truck?" I also wonder if he made any aborted calls, eg to his father. I don't think we have his phone, do we?

It's hard to imagine how someone in their early 20's, who some believe was still in a drunken drug fuelled stupor after a big night out, could think so clearly as to not leave an obvious trail for police to follow.
Anyone like the mate with a truck would be called an accomplice knowing now the accused may have used it to move a body.
Far worse if the scenario was hey mate I've got a body that I want you to hide and get the mate to do it.
Or even worse than that would be hey mate I've got another body for you to hide.
Anyone who knows exactly what happened I think should be called an accomplice and it's that person or people I believe the police are trying to flush out.
Police would know by now from what the accused has said or shown them if someone else was involved.
That's where I think a reward would come in handy if police can't work it out themselves and believe the accused had assistance.
It's now been 18 months since Samantha disappeared and if more than one person was involved then they should be jailed and that should be everyone's opinion.