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

 

[31550]

True. Not sure how they could possibly know if the death was a deliberate act or not. The coverup though is a crime in itself regardless of how the death occurred.

Sure, but he's been charged with murder, not manslaughter, or even "interfere with a corpse".

 

[Zidane98]

Sure, but he's been charged with murder, not manslaughter, or even "interfere with a corpse".

If he has refused to cooperate I do wonder what evidence they have cited to bring murder charges. Maybe they had him under surveillance and he said it to himself or he confessed to someone are possibilities.


Certainly metadata alone could not be used to bring murder charges here. There's surely got to be other evidence to support a murder charge.

 

[31550]

If he has refused to cooperate I do wonder what evidence they have cited to bring murder charges. Maybe they had him under surveillance and he said it to himself or he confessed to someone are possibilities.


Certainly metadata alone could not be used to bring murder charges here. There's surely got to be other evidence to support a murder charge.

Again, nobody has said he has "refused to co-operate". They have only said he hasn't revealed the location of the body.
At the press conference when the question was put about co-operation, the police declined to comment.

 

[Terrafirma]

Again, nobody has said he has "refused to co-operate". They have only said he hasn't revealed the location of the body.
At the press conference when the question was put about co-operation, the police declined to comment.

Yes we can only speculate all that matters to me personally is that he has been charged with murder. Time will tell and we just have to wait. I only hope they find her remains

 

[shorsky]

I think most of us here believe that the police have mobile phone/GPS data which places the accused and SM in the same location at the same time.
What is missing, however is any apparent evidence that this was a deliberate or intentional act (ie murder), as police have alleged.
Police will need something like a body (and thereby cause of death) or murder weapon, or proven motive (maybe all of the above) to prove murder, unless they get a confession.

Well that’s certainly missing to us, the public. But I highly doubt it’s missing to the police, as they need that evidence in order to make a charge of murder.

 

[Catch]

Yes, I wondered this too. You would hope the family would be notified of any specific searches and developments

They wouldn't be told of police investigations, procedures. But going by the media, the police are keeping quiet with them. There could be someone else that they are watching, that's come to light. Something doesn't feel right with this, I feel there's more to this

 

[Catch]

True. Not sure how they could possibly know if the death was a deliberate act or not. The coverup though is a crime in itself regardless of how the death occurred.

For actual proof for the police to say this, he must have filmed it all, including dash cam and on his phone, showing him with Samantha throughout

 

[Black Diamond]

Short of a confession, without a body I have no idea how he could be charged with interfering with a corpse.

The police would have to either know where she was prior to the interference, or knew where she is now. They know neither.

 

[thumbs_up]

There could be someone else that they are watching, that's come to light. Something doesn't feel right with this, I feel there's more to this

I've had this nagging feeling this might be the case but acknowledge it's totally unfounded at this point.

 

[Franko Armani]

I've had this nagging feeling this might be the case but acknowledge it's totally unfounded at this point.

I agree.

 

[31550]

Well that’s certainly missing to us, the public. But I highly doubt it’s missing to the police, as they need that evidence in order to make a charge of murder.

Then why are they still searching for evidence? Not just the body, but specifically things like the phone, watch, SIM cards, etc. Why are they still appealing for information from the public if they have all they need?

 

[shorsky]

Then why are they still searching for evidence? Not just the body, but specifically things like the phone, watch, SIM cards, etc. Why are they still appealing for information from the public if they have all they need?

I guess they want the full story, and what happened after the murder.

 

[shorsky]

It’s so sad that Samantha’s family are spending Easter without her, and also with no knowledge of her whereabouts. I pray that they will get answers very soon, and be able to farewell her with love & dignity

 

[Malibuandcoke]

They wouldn't be told of police investigations, procedures. But going by the media, the police are keeping quiet with them. There could be someone else that they are watching, that's come to light. Something doesn't feel right with this, I feel there's more to this

I agree they wouldn’t be told of procedures etc but specific searches for Samantha, I would have thought they’d be prepared for an outcome. It does make you wonder, do you have liaison officers there?

 

[Angus Young]

If this guy is guilty they must have him on suicide watch big time.

But if he is guilty and plays his cards right could possibly be out in 15 (only in Australia). Before 40.
Not revealing where the body is yet, is an ace up his sleeve.
His lawyer is definitely making all the right unemotional decisions for him.

 

[Percel]

If this guy is guilty they must have him on suicide watch big time.

But if he is guilty and plays his cards right could possibly be out in 15 (only in Australia). Before 40.
Not revealing where the body is yet, is an ace up his sleeve.
His lawyer is definitely making all the right unemotional decisions for him.

Or not…

 

[ms finch]

If he has refused to cooperate I do wonder what evidence they have cited to bring murder charges. Maybe they had him under surveillance and he said it to himself or he confessed to someone are possibilities.


Certainly metadata alone could not be used to bring murder charges here. There's surely got to be other evidence to support a murder charge.

Refused to co-operate is just a loaded way of saying he's not providing any useful information, most likely exercising his right to silence.

There is almost no benefit to talking to police if you've been charged with a serious crime, and a lawyer will almost certainly advise as such, at least until they have seen the brief of evidence.

If you're innocent, short of having something rock solid you can present to the police, all you are doing is risking that they gather information on you that allows them to investigate you further or saying something incriminating without meaning to due to their attempts to trip you up and confuse you, and you end up in more of a mess than you began. You can also dob yourself in for other crimes. Innocent people absolutely have thought they can resolve the issue just by talking to the police and ended up making things much worse for themselves.

If you're guilty, well, I think the risks there are obvious.

Once a lawyer has brief of evidence, they can make a better assessment as to the benefits of an interview in terms of what needs to be and can be addressed.

Also, a lawyer will warn the accused to be careful what they say even to them, because once the lawyer has been told something they are stuck with it. They cannot be complicit in the accused lying. Now, innocent people do usually chew their lawyer's ears off while guilty people can be more circumspect, but that's not a hard and fast rule and we never know what people say to their lawyers anyway.

If he's innocent he has nothing useful to tell their investigation, anyway, and risks his own situation. If he's guilty he's not self incriminating. We have no idea which at this stage. But "refused to cooperate" always makes it sound as though the person is guilty and they're not helping the victims get justice.

 

[Zidane98]

Refused to co-operate is just a loaded way of saying he's not providing any useful information, most likely exercising his right to silence.

There is almost no benefit to talking to police if you've been charged with a serious crime, and a lawyer will almost certainly advise as such, at least until they have seen the brief of evidence.

If you're innocent, short of having something rock solid you can present to the police, all you are doing is risking that they gather information on you that allows them to investigate you further or saying something incriminating without meaning to due to their attempts to trip you up and confuse you, and you end up in more of a mess than you began. You can also dob yourself in for other crimes. Innocent people absolutely have thought they can resolve the issue just by talking to the police and ended up making things much worse for themselves.

If you're guilty, well, I think the risks there are obvious.

Once a lawyer has brief of evidence, they can make a better assessment as to the benefits of an interview in terms of what needs to be and can be addressed.

Also, a lawyer will warn the accused to be careful what they say even to them, because once the lawyer has been told something they are stuck with it. They cannot be complicit in the accused lying. Now, innocent people do usually chew their lawyer's ears off while guilty people can be more circumspect, but that's not a hard and fast rule and we never know what people say to their lawyers anyway.

If he's innocent he has nothing useful to tell their investigation, anyway, and risks his own situation. If he's guilty he's not self incriminating. We have no idea which at this stage. But "refused to cooperate" always makes it sound as though the person is guilty and they're not helping the victims get justice.

Good point.

How do you believe the police decided to bring murder charges?

Clearly him being in the area at the same time as the victim isn't enough to prove anything other than that.

If he's not saying anything they must have other inculpatory evidence from sources other than the alleged suspect to bring murder charges without a body.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Good point.

How do you believe the police decided to bring murder charges?

Clearly him being in the area at the same time as the victim isn't enough to prove anything other than that.

If he's not saying anything they must have other inculpatory evidence from sources other than the alleged suspect to bring murder charges without a body.

I think he has admitted something to someone close to him. That would probably be enough along with the phone data and cctv?

 

[Zidane98]

I think he has admitted something to someone close to him. That would probably be enough along with the phone data and cctv?

CCTV would only confirm an alleged suspects entry & exit to the bush on the day of the disappearance. So it would do nothing but corroborate metadata.

There isn't CCTV coverage in the middle of the bush where the police appear to believe the alleged murder occured.

Maybe you're on to him about a possible admission to a known person but the problem with that is it could be construed the admission was in jest, out of context etc. Problematic evidentiary wise.

All I know is his presence in the area at the same time the victim was there is not enough by itself to justify murder charges.

 

[ms finch]

Good point.

How do you believe the police decided to bring murder charges?

Clearly him being in the area at the same time as the victim isn't enough to prove anything other than that.

If he's not saying anything they must have other inculpatory evidence from sources other than the alleged suspect to bring murder charges without a body.

They don't actually need a heck of a lot to bring a murder charge.

One would hope that the evidence is substantive enough to see the case move forward, because otherwise it is thoroughly awful for all parties and the justice system, but there are plenty of times the initial charge hasn't gone anywhere and has ultimately been dropped or dismissed due to lack of evidence.

It is in fact possible that based on the likelihood that SM was dead, that various data placed the accused with her while she moved, and that there was nobody else in this vicinity or who followed this path with the two of them, that they charged him with murder. Perhaps also that there was some CCTV on which they both appeared, without even anything untoward appearing on it, but that wouldn't be essential for a charge.

Of course it's also possible that they have a smoking gun, so to speak. My point is that they don't need that or in fact that much for a murder charge.

So I don't infer from the fact that he has been charged with murder that there is absolutely more evidence than what we have heard about. There might be, but not necessarily.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say the evidence here is on the lower end of the scale and that they took the risk to bring charges with less evidence than they need for a conviction in part for strategic reasons and in the hope that they will acquire more evidence as the investigation continues.

 

[shorsky]

I think he has admitted something to someone close to him. That would probably be enough along with the phone data and cctv?

My thought is that the info the ‘informer’ relayed to the investigation team would need to include very specific information which married up with all the analytics / data that police had gathered on SM, and also perhaps the accused’s presence in the area. Perhaps they were also able to provide his clothing from that time.

I mean, I can’t just go to police & say ‘ xx told me he murdered her’, and them then go charge him with murder !

But I would also think that if a perpetrator was giving that level of detail to someone, wouldn’t they also say what they did with the body ?
Or wouldn’t the person absorbing that information ask what happened next, where was the body ?

However, there’s nothing about this that makes any sense so who knows what occurred at any stage, by anyone ..

 

[shorsky]

If I had to take a guess, I'd say the evidence here is on the lower end of the scale and that they took the risk to bring charges with less evidence than they need for a conviction in part for strategic reasons and in the hope that they will acquire more evidence as the investigation continues.

Wow, I find that interesting, and in conflict with my understanding of what’s required to lay a charge of murder on someone.

I hope it’s ok to ask - are you in a position of familiarity with Vic. Criminal Law ?

I ask because I want to have something ‘concrete’ to work with, and if the murder charge is pretty ‘loose’, then PS may not even be responsible.
Which puts a different spin on Why he’s not revealing the whereabouts of the body ( mind you, I think it’d be ‘legal suicide’ for him to do so if he is the culprit), and may even mean that the Real perpetrator is still running loose in society.

 

[31550]

There's been lots of speculation about how police have gotten to a murder charge without having any clear evidence relating to the method of murder.

I would suggest that is possible their evidence relates more to motive than means. Their investigation may have established a connection between POS and SM which provides a clear motive for murder. If this is the case, all they would need is to prove opportunity - that he was at the alleged murder scene at the same time. They can then allege murder without knowing the actual method, or location of the body.

 

[ms finch]

Wow, I find that interesting, and in conflict with my understanding of what’s required to lay a charge of murder on someone.

I hope it’s ok to ask - are you in a position of familiarity with Vic. Criminal Law ?

I ask because I want to have something ‘concrete’ to work with, and if the murder charge is pretty ‘loose’, then PS may not even be responsible.
Which puts a different spin on Why he’s not revealing the whereabouts of the body ( mind you, I think it’d be ‘legal suicide’ for him to do so if he is the culprit), and may even mean that the Real perpetrator is still running loose in society.

In answer to your question, yes, I have knowledge of criminal law.

There is nothing concrete to work with here simply on the basis that he has been charged. What police have should at least rise to a level of reasonable suspicion (I'm trying to use terms that are easily understood here) with a view to a prima facie case, but that is an exceptionally broad term and police have a lot of discretion in these matters.

Sometimes when people are charged there is masses of evidence and innocent until proven guilty can seem a formality. But that's not to be confused with the idea that all charges render innocent until proven guilty largely a formality. Innocent people are charged quite frequently. There is simply no way of knowing from a charge alone if someone is likely to be guilty or not, and certainly not in a situation like this one with such minimal evidence in the public domain.

Yes, his reason for not revealing the body location may be because he has been erroneously charged and has no idea where it is.

But equally, if he did in fact kill SM, it is actually not to his benefit to reveal the location of the body. To do so would be to admit guilt and seal his fate. It is very difficult to secure a murder conviction without a body. A number of wrongful convictions and questionable convictions are those without a body. In the absence of a body, manslaughter is often almost the only possible outcome. Francis Wark springs to mind - the jury couldn't find him guilty of the murder of Hayley Dodd, largely due to the absence of evidence to demonstrate what happened, but accepted manslaughter. Two that spring to mind that I would consider safe murder convictions without a body are Bradley Murdoch (Peter Falconio) and Chris Dawson (Teacher's Pet), but there was significant other evidence in both of these cases to account for the lack of a body.

To give another example, look at the CSK and Sarah Spiers. Although I think everyone thinks BRE killed Sarah, the reality of the legal process provides greater insight than just this. Police charged BRE with nothing except circumstantial pattern. There was no body, no forensic evidence, no eyewitness, no data connecting them being together, no confession, no informer. Nothing substantive at all. Nonetheless it was a valid charge. That shows just how little police really need to charge someone. Subsequently, despite the Judge acknowledging the likelihood that BRE was her killer, he could not find BRE guilty, precisely because there was simply no evidence. A charge with very limited evidence can be entirely valid and even likely correct, but it doesn't mean they'll secure a conviction.

Unless police find a body here or have some other substantive evidence to support his involvement in her death, there is no reason for POS to directly or effectively confess. Strategically he is preserving his best chance of getting an acquittal. If they do find a body or have or gather substantive evidence, this may change. It may then prove to be to his benefit to reveal the body and plead guilty for a reduced sentence. On the issue of co-operation, there is very limited, if any, difference in sentence mitigation between doing this at the beginning of an investigation and just before the first hearing entering an official plea. So, honestly he may as well not at this stage and preserve his options.

There is no way to infer his innocence or guilt at this point, none whatsoever. He is valid to be doing what he's doing (not talking) at the moment either way. All we can say is that police believe there is some sort of prima facie case against him, which may prove to be accurate or it may not.

EDIT: Typos