Samantha Murphy Ballarat * Patrick Orren Stephenson Charged With Murder

[Kurve]

Here are the crime board rules of engagement. Please read them.

Importantly, 'sub judice' means that a case is under consideration by the courts. 'Sub judice contempt' can occur if information is published that may be prejudicial to the court proceedings.

Don't spread baseless rumours or state as fact that which is opinion, please.

A degree of respect in all discussion across this board is expected.

Rules - Updated Crime Board Rules - READ BEFORE POSTING

General Information The BigFooty Crime board is a community that fosters discussion on current and past crimes, some which have social and media notoriety, that attracts the attention of public opinion and discussion on such matters. Please read these rules very carefully, both the Big Footy...

www.bigfooty.com

The Murder of Rebecca Young - Ballarat

The Murder of Hannah McGuire - Ballarat * Lachie Young

17

Lachie Young

Age

25

Ht

189cm

Wt

81kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.5

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

220.3

3star

D

9.0

2star

K

5.5

2star

HB

3.5

2star

M

1.0

1star

T

2.0

3star

MG

210.0

3star

D

11.2

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

5.0

4star

M

3.8

4star

T

1.8

4star

MG

219.6

4star

charged



Allegedly

 

[lissimmo]

If she'd been left where she was killed her body would have been found. Say she was hit by a car (which the police say didn't happen), her body would have been found by the side of the road. Say he didn't hit her with the car but got out and during an argument she died (or was at least badly injured). She had to have been taken somewhere, dead or alive, and has yet to be found.

Maybe he put her in the car, intending to take her to a hospital, then stopped and found she'd died. So he took her somewhere he hoped she'd never be found.

Pure speculation of course.

I don't think a 22 year old could have successfully hidden a body this long without being found.

 

[Underarrest_]

I don't know anything. Read what I wrote. I was commenting on what the police are alleging.
The police are alleging SM was killed at Mt Clear. They haven't found any trace of her body at Mt Clear despite extensive searches. They also allege POS acted alone.
I said, IF what the police allege is true, then SM must have been moved from Mt Clear, or her body would have been close to where she was allegedly killed. It is not physically possible for a single person to move an adult body any distance in a short space of time without a vehicle. Therefore, IF what the police allege actually happened, it is entirely reasonable to assume there must have been a vehicle involved in the movement of her body. Unless you or police can explain how this was done.

Alternate explanations: Police are incorrect, OR SM wasn't killed at Mt Clear, OR POS didn't do it, OR someone else was involved. Any of these are possibilities as there is no direct evidence proving any of them.

All possible explanations and others are also discussing their thoughts on possible scenarios/explanations, which haven’t been stated as fact.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I don't think a 22 year old could have successfully hidden a body this long without being found.

I don't follow your logic

I'm not suggesting he's hidden her in his garage. I think he might have taken her far far away.

 

[31550]

All possible explanations and others are also discussing their thoughts on possible scenarios/explanations, which haven’t been stated as fact.

Is this directed at me? If so, please quote me in entirety where I stated any scenario or explanation as fact.

 

[Underarrest_]

Is this directed at me? If so, please quote me in entirety where I stated any scenario or explanation as fact.

Is this directed at me? If so, please quote me in entirety where I stated any scenario or explanation as fact.

I’m not quoting you.
“and others are also discussing their thoughts on possible scenarios/explanations, which haven’t been stated as fact.”

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Is this directed at me? If so, please quote me in entirety where I stated any scenario or explanation as fact.

I think the whole problem is that we can't condemn someone's thoughts or ideas about how SM disappeared until after they have been found to be wrong.
To me, this is just a forum for tossing around a few thoughts and ideas.
My honest opinion is the police are wrong.
That it was hit and run and it was not deliberate.
I think it's incompetent of police to go in and arrest POS before they knew where the body was located.
It was the police who let POS dive while he was still taking drugs and alcohol and they may have well let him continue driving if they suspected he was a murderer.
Police are on a hiding to nothing to get a murder conviction at this rate IMHO

 

[Underarrest_]

I don't follow your logic

I'm not suggesting he's hidden her in his garage. I think he might have taken her far far away.

There was that case of that lady in Brisbane who was found deceased in the wall of the apartment building, although not suggesting this is what’s happened in SM’s case.
SM’s body could be a very long way away or could be closer than one might expect.

 

[Run n Spread]

I don't think a 22 year old could have successfully hidden a body this long without being found.

You underestimate how big an area it is. You could drive anywhere a bit off track and it would never be found.
At this point recovering the body (apart from provide closure) is confirmation SM is deceased and maybe offer a clue how she died. Broken ribs etc consistent with a car or knife laceration into bone. Unlikely to offer DNA or physical evidence linking to accused at this point or anyone else.
Would give a clue to location movement time etc from Mt clear and try link for movement with the accused to establish a pattern. Even a phone watch some trace would give evidence as to movement.

 

[31550]

You underestimate how big an area it is. You could drive anywhere a bit off track and it would never be found.
Also all recovering the body does (apart from provide closure) is confirm SM is deceased and maybe offer a clue how she died. Broken ribs etc consistent with a car or knife laceration into bone. Unlikely to offer DNA or physical evidence linking to accused at this point or anyone else

I think recovery of the body could be a huge step forward in solving the case. There could be enormous amounts of forensic evidence recovered with the body, depending on location and timing: footprints, tyre tracks, DNA of the offender (e.g. hair, skin or blood under the victim's fingernails if there was a struggle), clothing fibres connected to the offender, other items used to dispose of the body - e.g blankets, ropes, cloth, tools. Also the possibility of finding the victim's phone or watch with the offender's DNA or fingerprints. Or even a weapon. The location of the body itself may provide further evidence - is it a location intimately familiar to the alleged offender? Is the location of the body consistent with the proven movements of the alleged offender?

In addition, an autopsy and cause of death may provide further evidence - for example blunt force trauma or stab wounds consistent with an object found in the possession of the alleged offender.

 

[Run n Spread]

I don't know anything. Read what I wrote. I was commenting on what the police are alleging.
The police are alleging SM was killed at Mt Clear. They haven't found any trace of her body at Mt Clear despite extensive searches. They also allege POS acted alone.
I said, IF what the police allege is true, then SM must have been moved from Mt Clear, or her body would have been close to where she was allegedly killed. It is not physically possible for a single person to move an adult body any distance in a short space of time without a vehicle. Therefore, IF what the police allege actually happened, it is entirely reasonable to assume there must have been a vehicle involved in the movement of her body. Unless you or police can explain how this was done.

Alternate explanations: Police are incorrect, OR SM wasn't killed at Mt Clear, OR POS didn't do it, OR someone else was involved. Any of these are possibilities as there is no direct evidence proving any of them.

If POS vehicle was used has a trace of DNA or physical evidence been left in the vehicle? But again police surveillance was 2 weeks than the car was searched. So assuming it was cleaned etc how viable is any sample after that time + the time till Feb.
If no evidence the lawyer would raise as reasonable doubt
e.g. Never in vehicle.
Whole thing is like a jigsaw with missing pieces and not a clear cover of what the picture is meant to be

 

[Run n Spread]

I think recovery of the body could be a huge step forward in solving the case. There could be enormous amounts of forensic evidence recovered with the body, depending on location and timing: footprints, tyre tracks, DNA of the offender (e.g. hair, skin or blood under the victim's fingernails if there was a struggle), clothing fibres connected to the offender, other items used to dispose of the body - e.g blankets, ropes, cloth, tools. Also the possibility of finding the victim's phone or watch with the offender's DNA or fingerprints. Or even a weapon. The location of the body itself may provide further evidence - is it a location intimately familiar to the alleged offender? Is the location of the body consistent with the proven movements of the alleged offender?

In addition, an autopsy and cause of death may provide further evidence - for example blunt force trauma or stab wounds consistent with an object found in the possession of the alleged offender.

I agree it would be a huge help. Location movement even a clue how moved. Seat fibres on clothes etc could be linked to vehicle etc
I highly doubt thou stuff like blood DNA and much physical evidence would be usable after this long in the elements (skin under nails yep.as they can hold in a closed area)
Everything in the elements for over 3 months would contaminate most samples.

 

[31550]

I agree it would be a huge help. Location movement even a clue how moved. Seat fibres on clothes etc could be linked to vehicle etc
I highly doubt thou stuff like blood DNA and much physical evidence would be usable after this long in the elements (skin under nails yep.as they can hold in a closed area)
Everything in the elements for over 3 months would contaminate most samples.

Dried blood and DNA can be viable for many years if buried underground. Even a minute sample which matches the alleged offender would probably be enough to provide the proof they need.

 

[Run n Spread]

Dried blood and DNA can be viable for many years if buried underground. Even a minute sample which matches the alleged offender would probably be enough to provide the proof they need.

Possibly but if Im a juror I'm listening very closely to the cross examination.
Forensics and sample collection is a very exact science and even a tiny mistake can render a sample useless.
Exposure to animals moisture even just the length of time in the elements (even underground temperature moisture etc corrode stuff can really compromise the sample.
Why the first 48 hours is crucial.

 

[jason_recliner]

While it would help the case presented in court by adding some detail to the events, police don't need the body to prove Samantha was murdered by PoS. They want the body to provide closure for Samantha's family.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

While it would help the case presented in court by adding some detail to the events, police don't need the body to prove Samantha was murdered by PoS. They want the body to provide closure for Samantha's family.

What evidence do you believe they have now that would convict POS as a murderer?

 

[jason_recliner]

What evidence do you believe they have now that would convict POS as a murderer?

I don't know but it is something extremely compelling. Pics, video, audio and/or a confession are the only things I can think of.

 

[31550]

I don't know but it is something extremely compelling. Pics, video, audio and/or a confession are the only things I can think of.

Police haven't said they have any of those.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Police haven't said they have any of those.

That's just it. It just seems all so far fetched. No motive, nobody seems to be owning up to dobbing him in. But police insist it was a deliberate murder.
I hope the same thing is not going on with the mushroom lady.
There was a supreme court case in Perth of a lady accused of trying to kill her husband and that was dropped last week the day it was supposed to start because the police realised the woman was using something that would not have killed her husband.
Look at the absolute madness involving that rapist Lehermann. Everybody involved seems to be nuts in that case.
It gives us all a chance to vent.
Some people are vehemently on the side of the police, while I am not.
We just don't want to overstep the mark in terms of making false accusations on BF until the judges findings are made.

 

[Underarrest_]

That's just it. It just seems all so far fetched. No motive, nobody seems to be owning up to dobbing him in. But police insist it was a deliberate murder.
I hope the same thing is not going on with the mushroom lady.
There was a supreme court case in Perth of a lady accused of trying to kill her husband and that was dropped last week the day it was supposed to start because the police realised the woman was using something that would not have killed her husband.
Look at the absolute madness involving that rapist Lehermann. Everybody involved seems to be nuts in that case.
It gives us all a chance to vent.
Some people are vehemently on the side of the police, while I am not.
We just don't want to overstep the mark in terms of making false accusations on BF until the judges findings are made.

We don’t know if there’s an alleged motive although I do agree the whole things strange. Why would they not be saying how SM died? Surely they’ve told the family how she’s allegedly died, who if knew could tell other people. Or is the family meant to take them at their word? The whole alleging it’s a targeted attack but not saying how ,is bizarre.

 

[jason_recliner]

We don’t know if there’s an alleged motive although I do agree the whole things strange. Why would they not be saying how SM died? Surely they’ve told the family how she’s allegedly died, who if knew could tell other people. Or is the family meant to take them at their word? The whole alleging it’s a targeted attack but not saying how is, is bizarre.

Perhaps they don't want to jeopardise the trial. There's nothing to be gained by disclosing information to the public and everything to lose.

 

[Underarrest_]

Perhaps they don't want to jeopardise the trial. There's nothing to be gained by disclosing information to the public and everything to lose.

Yes yes I totally get that, but normally the public knows something eg the mushroom lady allegedly put poisonous mushrooms in the dinner.

 

[Terrafirma]

We don’t know if there’s an alleged motive although I do agree the whole things strange. Why would they not be saying how SM died? Surely they’ve told the family how she’s allegedly died, who if knew could tell other people. Or is the family meant to take them at their word? The whole alleging it’s a targeted attack but not saying how ,is bizarre.

Not saying how or why and the finer details is a common approach by criminal prosecution because they keep this information to themselves so they can then use this information later to contradict or cross examine someone. Often someone divulges exactly what happened when the information was never made public etc. There are many reasons to keep this information to themselves and it is very common

 

[31550]

Perhaps they don't want to jeopardise the trial. There's nothing to be gained by disclosing information to the public and everything to lose.

Except it might help them find the body. And it might prompt a witness to come forward who could confirm their theory.

Not saying how or why and the finer details is a common approach by criminal prosecution because they keep this information to themselves so they can then use this information later to contradict or cross examine someone. Often someone divulges exactly what happened when the information was never made public etc. There are many reasons to keep this information to themselves and it is very common

Except it must eventually be given to the defence before the case goes to trial. The prosecution can't just introduce a random piece of evidence in court, nor can they call a 'surprise' witness to try to catch the defence off-guard. If they try to do that, the evidence is likely to be ruled inadmissible. The defence will be made aware of the prosecution's alleged case before the trial.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Not saying how or why and the finer details is a common approach by criminal prosecution because they keep this information to themselves so they can then use this information later to contradict or cross examine someone. Often someone divulges exactly what happened when the information was never made public etc. There are many reasons to keep this information to themselves and it is very common

I'm just thinking generally speaking about releasing details - there is no harm in police saying they have phone pings, DNA, witnesses, I can't even think of anything else they might have...because I don't think they have anything that will result in a murder conviction.
I agree with you releasing specific info would hinder a trial but the public should expect a bit of reassurance from police to say we have it all in hand.
What nailed Claremont serial killer Bradley Edwards was two bit of stuff from one victim marked not to be tested which when they put the two bits of stuff together in England came up with Edwards' DNA. That wasn't released before the trial and nor it should.
As 31550 said the evidence police have has to come out eventually, possibly at a committal hearing, but just releasing generally some info now would do no harm.

 

[Underarrest_]

Except it might help them find the body. And it might prompt a witness to come forward who could confirm their theory.

Except it must eventually be given to the defence before the case goes to trial. The prosecution can't just introduce a random piece of evidence in court, nor can they call a 'surprise' witness to try to catch the defence off-guard. If they try to do that, the evidence is likely to be ruled inadmissible. The defence will be made aware of the prosecution's alleged case before the trial.

This makes a lot of sense...a potential witness coming forward who could confirm their theory.
If the public knows as much as something happened at Mt Clear they might not think something they’ve seen in another area is relevant.