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

 

[Zidane98]

And what information did they have to conduct the searches in such specific locations?

We don't know yet

Did someone see POS carting the body into the bush?

If that were the case they would have called the cops immediately and they would have been out there right away to arrest any potential perp in that scenario. As this didn't happen we can safely discount this scenario

Did CCTV show POS's car driving along a bush track?

There isn't CCTV in the bush. Some speculation is trail cameras that take still images may have snapped his vehicle or one he was known to be using on camera. His travel to and from the area would likely have been caught on CCTV of some sort if the police got their hands on it before it was overwritten.

Did POS tell someone where he hid the body?

Find this unlikely as the person he told very likely would have told the police right away.

Did the phone pings indicate a specific location?

Nope. Just a distance / azimuth from a number of towers. They wouldn't be able to access the location data from apps on his phone that day because he was not a suspect of a crime at the time.

Just throw a dart at any of those possibilities.
How credible/reliable was the info the police were acting on in terms of those searches? I know the answer to that one!

Police will look at all known information and search areas based off that knowledge. Given that it appears POS is not cooperating or isn't aware of the location SM's body police can only really instigate new searches when they have reliable information to go off. Otherwise it's a pointless exercise.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

We don't know yet

If that were the case they would have called the cops immediately and they would have been out there right away to arrest any potential perp in that scenario. As this didn't happen we can safely discount this scenario

There isn't CCTV in the bush. Some speculation is trail cameras that take still images may have snapped his vehicle or one he was known to be using on camera. His travel to and from the area would likely have been caught on CCTV of some sort if the police got their hands on it before it was overwritten.

Find this unlikely as the person he told very likely would have told the police right away.

Nope. Just a distance / azimuth from a number of towers. They wouldn't be able to access the location data from apps on his phone that day because he was not a suspect of a crime at the time.

Police will look at all known information and search areas based off that knowledge. Given that it appears POS is not cooperating or isn't aware of the location SM's body police can only really instigate new searches when they have reliable information to go off. Otherwise it's a pointless exercise.

Where is this information coming from in the theories that I put forward and you found unlikely.
I didn't mention psychics. Do you think it's unlikely they are giving the police info?
So, where do you think the info is coming from to conduct searches in such specific areas?

 

[Underarrest_]

Where is this information coming from in the theories that I put forward and you found unlikely.
I didn't mention psychics. Do you think it's unlikely they are giving the police info?
So, where do you think the info is coming from to conduct searches in such specific areas?

Why do you think they’ve searched these areas?

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Why do you think they’ve searched these areas?

It appears to me the threw a dart into one of the ideas I had and then shot an arrow into the air Robin Hood style and searched there, making sure there's no spectators around to ask questions about why they chose that location. I think it could be psychics myself, but never has a psychic ever led police to a body and that's why they've found nothing.
Why do you think they searched those areas?

 

[Underarrest_]

It appears to me the threw a dart into one of the ideas I had and then shot an arrow into the air Robin Hood style and searched there, making sure there's no spectators around to ask questions about why they chose that location. I think it could be psychics myself, but never has a psychic ever led police to a body and that's why they've found nothing.
Why do you think they searched those areas?

There could be many reasons these locations have been searched, not just from the above mentioned scenarios that you have questioned.

 

[31550]

They have to actively search somewhere. Can't be seen to have given up looking. They have made a public commitment to finding the body. How do they choose the search locations? Not randomly - it would be a decision made at a fairly high level. It could be based on 'intelligence received', e.g. a tip-off, or it could be just chosen as somewhere which makes sense geographically (the body could have been moved there quickly and easily without detection), or it makes sense topographically (easy to conceal a body, hard to access or see). They may be searching in locations we don't know about, or they may have staged searches as publicity stunts to carry out surveillance on suspects or to draw out potential witnesses. Charges have been laid - it's unusual for police to make any further public comment about a case once charges have been laid.

 

[madjoe]

POS strikes me as a type of guy who would ask a footy mate to fix his ute after hitting a roo? and someone put one an one together and they have him cleaning the ute at a car wash? that is my total guess

 

[Underarrest_]

Did they mention looking for the earbuds/airpods SM was using at the time? Maybe one, both or part of these was found at the location at Mt Clear.

 

[Underarrest_]

It appears to me the threw a dart into one of the ideas I had and then shot an arrow into the air Robin Hood style and searched there, making sure there's no spectators around to ask questions about why they chose that location. I think it could be psychics myself, but never has a psychic ever led police to a body and that's why they've found nothing.
Why do you think they searched those areas?

They could have
evidence from the car when seized with soil, vegetation leading them to particular areas,
knowledge of known places the accused was known to visit frequently or been to after the incident, witnesses who saw the accused at certain areas or CTV that shows him going to certain areas.

 

[mrskafoops]

Eh. Most killers only do it once. You're safest working next to somebody who's already got theirs out of their system.

Yes, we are seeing a more common occurrence of the 'one and done' killer.

 

[Run n Spread]

It appears to me the threw a dart into one of the ideas I had and then shot an arrow into the air Robin Hood style and searched there, making sure there's no spectators around to ask questions about why they chose that location. I think it could be psychics myself, but never has a psychic ever led police to a body and that's why they've found nothing.
Why do you think they searched those areas?

Some police do consult psychics. Obviously they can't testify in court and evidence would need to be verified another way but it happens. Not common but not unheard. No idea in this case.

 

[thumbs_up]

Some police do consult psychics. Obviously they can't testify in court and evidence would need to be verified another way but it happens. Not common but not unheard. No idea in this case.

As an amateur psychic I am sensing that consulting a psychic to be a complete waste of time. Although can understand why they would exhaust all avenues when there are no leads.

 

[31550]

Did they mention looking for the earbuds/airpods SM was using at the time? Maybe one, both or part of these was found at the location at Mt Clear.

And what would that prove beyond what is already proven?

 

[Zidane98]

Where is this information coming from in the theories that I put forward and you found unlikely.
I didn't mention psychics. Do you think it's unlikely they are giving the police info?
So, where do you think the info is coming from to conduct searches in such specific areas?

My best bet is they have mobile phone data of his movements or possibly CCTV. Then extrapolate a search from there.

 

[Underarrest_]

And what would that prove beyond what is already proven?

I didn’t say it would prove anything. I just hadn’t heard if police had mentioned looking for them along with the phone/watch or whether they’d already found them at the scene as it could have been another reason they believed early on that their was foul play rather than a medical incident or she got lost.

 

[Run n Spread]

They have to actively search somewhere. Can't be seen to have given up looking. They have made a public commitment to finding the body. How do they choose the search locations? Not randomly - it would be a decision made at a fairly high level. It could be based on 'intelligence received', e.g. a tip-off, or it could be just chosen as somewhere which makes sense geographically (the body could have been moved there quickly and easily without detection), or it makes sense topographically (easy to conceal a body, hard to access or see). They may be searching in locations we don't know about, or they may have staged searches as publicity stunts to carry out surveillance on suspects or to draw out potential witnesses. Charges have been laid - it's unusual for police to make any further public comment about a case once charges have been laid.

True. If I was searching I'd re trace the steps of the investigation.
Odds are she is a long way out and could be anywhere. So who of those (namely POS I'm guessing) interviewed/tracked etc round the area had a few unexplained hours on the Sunday. They would've been picked up on traffic cams lights if they went through towns. When did their phones go back on and off? That would give an indication on time taken.

 

[31550]

I didn’t say it would prove anything. I just hadn’t heard if police had mentioned looking for them along with the phone/watch or whether they’d already found them at the scene as it could have been another reason they believed early on that their was foul play rather than a medical incident or she got lost.

I don't see how finding an earpod would tell you anything about what happened to Samantha. Finding her phone or watch would only give information between the last time it synced to the cloud and when it was turned off/stopped working, which again would be unlikely to provide any further evidence. Unless someone else's blood / DNA was found on these objects. Even then, it only places a particular person in that place - anyone might have found an earbud or watch, picked it up, then discarded it again. Doesn't mean they are the killer.

 

[Underarrest_]

I don't see how finding an earpod would tell you anything about what happened to Samantha. Finding her phone or watch would only give information between the last time it synced to the cloud and when it was turned off/stopped working, which again would be unlikely to provide any further evidence. Unless someone else's blood / DNA was found on these objects. Even then, it only places a particular person in that place - anyone might have found an earbud or watch, picked it up, then discarded it again. Doesn't mean they are the killer.

Again, I didn’t say it would prove anything or that a certain person is a killer. If found, It might help tell police where an incident has happened. For example, if SM has been hit with something and an earpod or part of, flies off, it would be at the scene or it could be in another area where they believe she’s been moved or put in a vehicle. Who knows he could have even realised one/both were missing and returned to the crime scene.
Also if one was found with someone else’s blood/DNA on it, (along with other evidence) it could be a crucial part of evidence.

 

[thumbs_up]

I'm wondering whether the police were able to obtain data from SM's smart watch. They seemed to track her run that day quite precisely and seem to have a theory on the time and location of when she died.
If this was corroborated with data from another person's phone (e.g., google maps records movements and can tell what mode of transport - walking, running, bike, car etc).

If data from POS's phone matched with SM's movements in a precise manner, then you have data showing him travelling in a car (corroborated with CCTV fragments) with SM's smart watch still on, after she is alleged to be dead, then this would be compelling evidence.

Any evidence of an ear pod or anything else that belonged to SM at the site that she is alleged to be murdered at, would be more corroborating evidence for the prosecutor to work with to build the case that there was a struggle and she was murdered in said struggle.

Keeping in mind that the prosecution doesn't need to prove murder, just build a case beyond reasonable doubt, these pieces of evidence, if that is what the police have, would be incredibly persuasive to a jury.

This is all speculation of course as I do not know what evidence the police have.

 

[31550]

the prosecution doesn't need to prove murder, just build a case beyond reasonable doubt,

I don't understand the distinction between the two. They need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that POS committed the murder. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[thumbs_up]

I don't understand the distinction between the two. They need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that POS committed the murder. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's semantics, nevermind.

 

[thumbs_up]

I don't understand the distinction between the two. They need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that POS committed the murder. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll have a second crack at answering this... It's to get in front of people who may respond by saying "oh but there's no body so how can they even prove she was murdered?"

To that I would say that don't need to factually prove it happened but just to persuade beyond reasonable doubt that she is dead and that POS murdered her.

The distinction is between fact and likelihood/probability and to me that distinction is important to note.

 

[31550]

I'll have a second crack at answering this... It's to get in front of people who may respond by saying "oh but there's no body so how can they even prove she was murdered?"

To that I would say that don't need to factually prove it happened but just to persuade beyond reasonable doubt that she is dead and that POS murdered her.

The distinction is between fact and likelihood/probability and to me that distinction is important to note.

Possibility and probability do not enter into the equation.

The law does not require the prosecution to prove irrefutably (or beyond ANY doubt) that POS murdered SM.

But they DO need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. (NOT 'on the balance of probabilities').
If there is ANY consideration of possibility/probability in the jury's mind, then that meets the legal definition of 'beyond reasonable doubt', and they must acquit.

 

[Underarrest_]

I'll have a second crack at answering this... It's to get in front of people who may respond by saying "oh but there's no body so how can they even prove she was murdered?"

To that I would say that don't need to factually prove it happened but just to persuade beyond reasonable doubt that she is dead and that POS murdered her.

The distinction is between fact and likelihood/probability and to me that distinction is important to note.

I know what you mean.

 

[thumbs_up]

Possibility and probability do not enter into the equation.

The law does not require the prosecution to prove irrefutably (or beyond ANY doubt) that POS murdered SM.

But they DO need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. (NOT 'on the balance of probabilities').
If there is ANY consideration of possibility/probability in the jury's mind, then that meets the legal definition of 'beyond reasonable doubt', and they must acquit.

Well that's where ideology and practicality diverge.