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

[Poirot's niece]

There is also this vicgov mapping tool which is available to use anonymously. People in trades, construction, public works or any type of utility work such as electricity, communications infrastructure, water supply access this site often. It includes mines and mineral occurences.
GeoVic

 

[Ron Jeremy]

It’s just a matter of time now. Given the amount of data VICPOL would have and the means they have to back up or verify the meta data ( ring cameras, cctv, public statements, possibly car GPS ) placing the accused in the general area, you’d have to argue they are pretty sure of something! I’d have a wager on him caving in just before the trial starts in April and owning up in an attempt to get a more lenient penalty - sounds unlikely I know, but it I’m sure it’s happened before. I also believe that when the trial starts, we will all be surprised at the amount of data VICPOL have, hence the reason they’ve said stuff all to the media.

 

[Bethan]

@Poirot's niece

Thank you for the 2 informative links above

 

[Rocket333]

I did a search 'maps old mines Enfield State park vic -ai'. Lots of pages and links came up showing areas of density for historical mines and shallow diggings. Prospecting is legal in Vic (with a permit). Maps and trails of historical significance are available if you know what you're looking for.
While I don't disagree with your theory re both the accused and Samantha's phone/GPS co-ordinates and pings. We know that the accused was an active trailbike rider and there are both official and unofficial motocross tracks in Enfield. Someone/s familiar with these tracks, and having grown up in the area would be very likely to know the telltale signs of old diggings and mines.
I've attached a link showing basic visual cues to recognising old mines Dangers to recognise in historical mining areas

Thanks for sharing this PN. Some of those old mineshafts present the perfect hiding spot - incredibly deep, hard to see, and dangerous to explore. Enfield would have been second nature to Stephenson since it’s right in his backyard. However for the body to be left there in the first place, he would’ve needed his ute, which means the chosen site was most likely close to a track where a vehicle could get in.

And if Sam’s phone was ditched in the dam before heading to Enfield, then her data trail would have stopped at the dam - unless her watch was still talking.

 

[Rocket333]

It’s just a matter of time now. Given the amount of data VICPOL would have and the means they have to back up or verify the meta data ( ring cameras, cctv, public statements, possibly car GPS ) placing the accused in the general area, you’d have to argue they are pretty sure of something! I’d have a wager on him caving in just before the trial starts in April and owning up in an attempt to get a more lenient penalty - sounds unlikely I know, but it I’m sure it’s happened before. I also believe that when the trial starts, we will all be surprised at the amount of data VICPOL have, hence the reason they’ve said stuff all to the media.

I’m with you that it’s just a matter of time now Ron. I’m not so sure though that Stephenson will cave in easily. The toll on his family would be massive, and I suspect part of his silence so far has been about protecting them - especially his dad, which was mentioned as a reason when Stephenson’s name was briefly suppressed after he was first charged.

He’s probably convinced them he’s innocent, so admitting guilt won’t be easy as it risks shame & banishment. I wouldn’t be surprised if he keeps digging his heels in, even if Sam is found, for that reason and maybe also to save face with his girlfriend and peers. He’s seen the evidence, and if there’s no direct witness - human or digital - to the actual murder, he might think he can still wriggle out of it, body or no body.

All mine.

 

[BreakingNews]

It’s just a matter of time now. Given the amount of data VICPOL would have and the means they have to back up or verify the meta data ( ring cameras, cctv, public statements, possibly car GPS ) placing the accused in the general area, you’d have to argue they are pretty sure of something! I’d have a wager on him caving in just before the trial starts in April and owning up in an attempt to get a more lenient penalty - sounds unlikely I know, but it I’m sure it’s happened before. I also believe that when the trial starts, we will all be surprised at the amount of data VICPOL have, hence the reason they’ve said stuff all to the media.

If he fesses up, then there won't be a trial. Just sentencing. And we will never know anything more until a journalist writes a book. MOO

 

[Rocket333]

If he fesses up, then there won't be a trial. Just sentencing. And we will never know anything more until a journalist writes a book. MOO

I’d like to see it go to trial so the evidence can be tested and the full story comes out. At the same time, admitting guilt and the hiding spot could give the family closure without dragging things on. It’s a double‑edged sword and neither path is easy. Stephenson’s chances don’t look good, and the sentence he faces could be heavy. The fact he hasn’t applied for bail, at least as far as we know, is curious. Maybe he figures that if he’s found guilty and locked away for decades, admitting to something as heinous as murder won’t shave enough time off to matter. Staying ‘innocent’ might at least keep some family support intact and maybe even help him cling to the delusion that he’s still a decent person. Waiting for the book will be an ordeal almost as punishing as the trial.

My opinion.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

I’d like to see it go to trial so the evidence can be tested and the full story comes out. At the same time, admitting guilt and the hiding spot could give the family closure without dragging things on. It’s a double‑edged sword and neither path is easy. Stephenson’s chances don’t look good, and the sentence he faces could be heavy. The fact he hasn’t applied for bail, at least as far as we know, is curious. Maybe he figures that if he’s found guilty and locked away for decades, admitting to something as heinous as murder won’t shave enough time off to matter. Staying ‘innocent’ might at least keep some family support intact and maybe even help him cling to the delusion that he’s still a decent person. Waiting for the book will be an ordeal almost as punishing as the trial.

My opinion.

100% rocket

 

[Cedars]

If he fesses up, then there won't be a trial. Just sentencing. And we will never know anything more until a journalist writes a book. MOO

Is that really how it works in Aus?

I followed the case of Daniel Holdom in NSW, he decided just before his trial to plead guilty. At the public trial, which, of course, family of victims attended, the prosecutor revealed ALL the details of what police discovered against him, and the court lifted the suppression orders so journalists could get copies of everything.

Then, at the sentencing, the surviving victims gave their impact statements.

Gruesome details revealed into how mother and daughter died at the hands of Daniel Holdom

Never before released court documents detailed the items Daniel Holdom used to kill the pair, as well as a notebook that contained a sordid list of childrens' names and ages.

www.smh.com.au

IMO, justice can't be served in secrecy. Knowing what the criminal did to his victims, why, how the case was solved, must be made public for justice to be done.

JMO

 

[Cliff Hardy]

Is that really how it works in Aus?

I followed the case of Daniel Holdom in NSW, he decided just before his trial to plead guilty. At the public trial, which, of course, family of victims attended, the prosecutor revealed ALL the details of what police discovered against him, and the court lifted the suppression orders so journalists could get copies of everything.

Then, at the sentencing, the surviving victims gave their impact statements.

Gruesome details revealed into how mother and daughter died at the hands of Daniel Holdom

Never before released court documents detailed the items Daniel Holdom used to kill the pair, as well as a notebook that contained a sordid list of childrens' names and ages.

www.smh.com.au

IMO, justice can't be served in secrecy. Knowing what the criminal did to his victims, why, how the case was solved, must be made public for justice to be done.

JMO

I don't know that case specifically but my understanding is that, in Australia, if you plead guilty prior to trial, there is no need to hold one and the case progressed straight to sentencing.

 

[SouthAussie]

Is that really how it works in Aus?

I followed the case of Daniel Holdom in NSW, he decided just before his trial to plead guilty. At the public trial, which, of course, family of victims attended, the prosecutor revealed ALL the details of what police discovered against him, and the court lifted the suppression orders so journalists could get copies of everything.

Then, at the sentencing, the surviving victims gave their impact statements.

Gruesome details revealed into how mother and daughter died at the hands of Daniel Holdom

Never before released court documents detailed the items Daniel Holdom used to kill the pair, as well as a notebook that contained a sordid list of childrens' names and ages.

www.smh.com.au

IMO, justice can't be served in secrecy. Knowing what the criminal did to his victims, why, how the case was solved, must be made public for justice to be done.

JMO

In Victoria, Borce Ristevski made a last minute manslaughter deal with the prosecution (charged with murdering his wife). We never heard what happened. There was no trial.

 

[Cedars]

In Victoria, Borce Ristevski made a last minute manslaughter deal with the prosecution (charged with murdering his wife). We never heard what happened. There was no trial.

I looked that up. In that case police had no evidence related to the crime or him hiding her body. The only evidence they had was his subsequent lying, and that was ruled inadmissable by the judge. So they immediately did the deal.

Borce Ristevski admits killing wife Karen, dumping body in bushland

Melbourne man Borce Ristevski has sensationally admitted to killing his wife Karen, pleading guilty to the manslaughter ahead of his trial.

www.theage.com.au

There was a brief trial, prior to the sentencing, which included the facts that he'd agreed to admit to: "Earlier, the court heard Ms Ristevski was killed by Borce Ristevski at the couple's Avondale Heights home sometime between 8:58am and 10:43am on June 29, 2016", and then he hid her body.

He didn't admit to how she was killed, and police didn't have any evidence because of decomposition.

Daughter gives 'glowing reference' for father who killed her mum

The daughter of slain shop owner Karen Ristevski provides a character reference for her father, Borce Ristevski, calling him loving and charismatic, as a court hears other family members recount the pain he caused by killing his wife and lying about it for years.

www.abc.net.au

I hope they have more evidence in this case, I guess we'll see.

JMO

 

[SouthAussie]

There was a brief trial, prior to the sentencing, which included the facts that he'd agreed to admit to: "Earlier, the court heard Ms Ristevski was killed by Borce Ristevski at the couple's Avondale Heights home sometime between 8:58am and 10:43am on June 29, 2016", and then he hid her body.

That was the plea hearing, where the court heard victim impact statements and any mitigating factors before deciding the sentence. It wasn't a trial.

"The plea hearing in Melbourne ...... "

I followed the case closely (here on WS). No details of what Borce did to Karen (or what he said he did to Karen) came out at the plea hearing, we only heard the things that we already knew - approx time of death, where and when Karen was found.

If Stephenson pulls the same kind of stunt, it may be that we won't hear details - other than what we already know (but I hope we hear more!)

 

[BreakingNews]

That was the plea hearing, where the court heard victim impact statements and any mitigating factors before deciding the sentence. It wasn't a trial.

"The plea hearing in Melbourne ...... "

I followed the case closely (here on WS). No details of what Borce did to Karen (or what he said he did to Karen) came out at the plea hearing, we only heard the things that we already knew - approx time of death, where and when Karen was found.

If Stephenson pulls the same kind of stunt, it may be that we won't hear details - other than what we already know (but I hope we hear more!)

And that is how the legal system works in Australia. It's not hiding anything, nor being non transparent. It is the right of every one arrested to plead guilty or not guilty. Some offenders plead guilty just before a trial. This way their dirty linen is not aired in public and it is usually taken into account that they spared the victim/family for sitting through a painful experience. Having said that, I wish Baden Clay had pleaded guilty to murdering his wife. We all could have done without his explicite sex life details.

 

[Rocket333]

That was the plea hearing, where the court heard victim impact statements and any mitigating factors before deciding the sentence. It wasn't a trial.

"The plea hearing in Melbourne ...... "

I followed the case closely (here on WS). No details of what Borce did to Karen (or what he said he did to Karen) came out at the plea hearing, we only heard the things that we already knew - approx time of death, where and when Karen was found.

If Stephenson pulls the same kind of stunt, it may be that we won't hear details - other than what we already know (but I hope we hear more!)

Exactly SA. The problem for us with plea hearings is we’re left with just the bare bones. People want these cases to go to trial partly out of curiosity, and also because public awareness serves a purpose: it shines a light on bigger issues and keeps accountability in the open (eg in this case, gaps in victim safety, challenges in evidence recovery, and the broader public demand for accountability in violent crime). If Stephenson takes the plea path, we’ll only hear what’s already known and honestly after camping out on this case for so long, we surely deserve, at the very least, a fresh pot of courtroom tea.

 

[BreakingNews]

Exactly SA. The problem for us with plea hearings is we’re left with just the bare bones. People want these cases to go to trial partly out of curiosity, and also because public awareness serves a purpose: it shines a light on bigger issues and keeps accountability in the open (eg in this case, gaps in victim safety, challenges in evidence recovery, and the broader public demand for accountability in violent crime). If Stephenson takes the plea path, we’ll only hear what’s already known and honestly after camping out on this case for so long, we surely deserve, at the very least, a fresh pot of courtroom tea.

However a plea deal before a trial saves the family/friends of having to testify and or sit through a long and painful experience of hearing all the arguments in a public arena. Not sure I'd want my loved ones to have to experience that. However I understand that the public (and of course us Sleuthers) want all our unanswered questions answered. I still can't equate having a trial just so the public are aware of what happened is in everyone's best interests.
I think if the alleged murderer pleads guilty before the trial, i'd be happy to wait for some enterprising journalist to write a book outlining what happened.

 

[Cedars]

I followed the case closely (here on WS). No details of what Borce did to Karen (or what he said he did to Karen) came out at the plea hearing, we only heard the things that we already knew - approx time of death, where and when Karen was found.

So, you're saying that when the police have no evidence, a perp should somehow be forced to tell details - and somehow forced to tell the truth?

IMO, that's not possible in any modern legal system. In systems that use torture, a full confession might be obtained, but it may not be true.

JMO

 

[BreakingNews]

So, you're saying that when the police have no evidence, a perp should somehow be forced to tell details - and somehow forced to tell the truth?

IMO, that's not possible in any modern legal system. In systems that use torture, a full confession might be obtained, but it may not be true.

JMO

I don't think SA is saying that police don't have the evidence. They obviously did for him to plead guilty. That is common practice in Australia, especially when the perp realises s/he has the evidence stacked against them.
Also as SA says, the public only knows what has already come out in the pretrials.

 

[Rocket333]

However a plea deal before a trial saves the family/friends of having to testify and or sit through a long and painful experience of hearing all the arguments in a public arena. Not sure I'd want my loved ones to have to experience that. However I understand that the public (and of course us Sleuthers) want all our unanswered questions answered. I still can't equate having a trial just so the public are aware of what happened is in everyone's best interests.
I think if the alleged murderer pleads guilty before the trial, i'd be happy to wait for some enterprising journalist to write a book outlining what happened.

Absolutely BN.

I think one of the things we can all agree on is how much strength it takes for families to endure the trial process. Plea hearings can spare them from reliving painful specifics, while trials, to put a positive spin on them if they have to go ahead, may be cathartic and offer some healing by ensuring the loved one’s story is formally acknowledged and justice is moving forward.

As an audience of course we’re curious and we want to know every detail. We also well know that those details don’t belong to us; they belong to the families and to the justice process. What the public does need in both plea hearings and trials is some degree of reassurance that the truth is being weighed, the facts recorded, and the community better protected.

 

[Rocket333]

So, you're saying that when the police have no evidence, a perp should somehow be forced to tell details - and somehow forced to tell the truth?

IMO, that's not possible in any modern legal system. In systems that use torture, a full confession might be obtained, but it may not be true.

JMO

Nope. SA is just saying that plea hearings only cover the basics. Modern legal systems wouldn’t support forced confessions anyway, so it’s a moot point.