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]

Well that's where ideology and practicality diverge.

It's not a matter of ideology or practicality. It's what the law says.

Under the presumption of innocence, a person cannot be found guilty unless there is no reasonable alternative hypothesis that can be put forward that is consistent with their innocence. There must be no reasonable doubt in the mind of the decision-maker (magistrate, judge or jury) that the person is guilty.

No reasonable doubt. None. Zero. That is the legal standard of proof.

 

[thumbs_up]

It's not a matter of ideology or practicality. It's what the law says.

Under the presumption of innocence, a person cannot be found guilty unless there is no reasonable alternative hypothesis that can be put forward that is consistent with their innocence. There must be no reasonable doubt in the mind of the decision-maker (magistrate, judge or jury) that the person is guilty.

No reasonable doubt. None. Zero. That is the legal standard of proof.

I don't think you get the point I've been trying to make but that's okay. I appreciate your critical thinking skills.

 

[31550]

I don't think you get the point I've been trying to make but that's okay. I appreciate your critical thinking skills.

You are saying that a jury might decide innocence/guilt on the basis of probability. I am saying that the law, the judge, (and probably the defence lawyers) will direct them to decide on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The judge will explain to the jury what 'reasonable doubt' means, and what the appropriate standard of proof is to reach a verdict according to the law.

 

[thumbs_up]

I know what you mean.

Thank goodness someone understands the essence of what I was saying. Use one word erroneously and you get torn apart in here.

 

[Run n Spread]

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.

They need to factually prove it.
They can still do.this without a body by using the evidence they do have to build via circumstantial/indirect evidence evidence that SM is dead and the circumstances are that no other rational explanation is reasonable possible except POS killed SM beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pure guess as we have nfi what the evidence is but
Phone data shows the 2 together at a set time
Smart data stops/phone off that SM died at this time
Phone vehicle regosurveillance etc tracks POS movements on the Sunday
he can't account all his.movements
POS said something material belonging to SM found in his car damage to.his car etc
While 1 or 2 pieces are not enough when joined together no other explanation is possible (Again above is hpothetical)
Alternatively the police have no hard evidence and POS remains silent. Thus holes exist in the chain of evidence to form a reasonable doubt e.g POS was only not accountable for 30 mins on Sunday after 11Not enough time to do this undetected so.the chain breaks and there is doubt it happened

 

[Run n Spread]

As to above while it may be too late to establish cause a body would help build a case in terms of establishing where she was moved any items missing distances etc as well as location of movement as now it's guesswork

 

[31550]

They need to factually prove it.
They can still do.this without a body by using the evidence they do have to build via circumstantial/indirect evidence evidence that SM is dead and the circumstances are that no other rational explanation is reasonable possible except POS killed SM beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pure guess as we have nfi what the evidence is but
Phone data shows the 2 together at a set time
Smart data stops/phone off that SM died at this time
Phone vehicle regosurveillance etc tracks POS movements on the Sunday
he can't account all his.movements
POS said something material belonging to SM found in his car damage to.his car etc
While 1 or 2 pieces are not enough when joined together no other explanation is possible (Again above is hpothetical)
Alternatively the police have no hard evidence and POS remains silent. Thus holes exist in the chain of evidence to form a reasonable doubt e.g POS was only not accountable for 30 mins on Sunday after 11Not enough time to do this undetected so.the chain breaks and there is doubt it happened

It's not enough just to prove that POS and SM were in the same place at the same time.

• They need to also prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that nobody else was there. How can they do that? Just because no other phone pinged? Maybe the other person didn't carry a phone.
• They need to prove intent. This requires a motive, or other explanation (beyond reasonable doubt) which proves POS acted deliberately or with the knowledge that his actions were likely to cause SM's death. Again, how can they do this without an eyewitness or physical evidence or a confession?
• They need to prove that POS actions did in fact cause SM's death, and that she did not die from other causes. Again, how do you do that without a body? (Defence: yeah, I came across her body, she was already dead, I panicked and left. Someone else must have moved her body).

 

[Run n Spread]

It's not enough just to prove that POS and SM were in the same place at the same time.

• They need to also prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that nobody else was there. How can they do that? Just because no other phone pinged? Maybe the other person didn't carry a phone.
• They need to prove intent. This requires a motive, or other explanation (beyond reasonable doubt) which proves POS acted deliberately or with the knowledge that his actions were likely to cause SM's death. Again, how can they do this without an eyewitness or physical evidence or a confession?
• They need to prove that POS actions did in fact cause SM's death, and that she did not die from other causes. Again, how do you do that without a body? (Defence: yeah, I came across her body, she was already dead, I panicked and left. Someone else must have moved her body).

Certainly won't be easy.
Couple of points 1. Not necessarily
Police long suspected Milat had an accomplice but was enough to conviction him based on evidence and what was found via warrant.
Point 2 this will be biggest hurdle. Never mind the body but without DNA/a possession even signs of a physical act from him whole thing is a mystery
Still people have been convicted without bodies.
Point 3 yep. Even now without been grim if they find a body it may be too late to determine cause of death. Only reason they could in the pilot case was because independent fragments of skull were found and there is no other reasonable explanation.
But yeah my point was you can convict on indirect evidence but a hell of a lot adds up
In other cases mentioned it was at least proven the convicted and victim were together/last person scene. Here at this point there appears nothing.
Did the police jump the gun under pressure for results?

 

[31550]

Couple of points 1. Not necessarily
Police long suspected Milat had an accomplice

Not suggesting an accomplice. Only that circumstantial evidence is that POS and SM were in the same place at the same time. Unless it can be proven that no-one else was also there, then there is reasonable doubt that POS is the offender. The defence only needs to show it is possible that someone else could have been there. In the case of Milat, the location was so remote and out of the way, that it was reasonable to conclude his association with the location was unique enough to implicate him. Mt Clear is a fairly popular location on a Sunday Morning. It is reasonable to posit that another person was also there at around the same time who has not been identified, and POS was just a passer-by with his phone on.

 

[Underarrest_]

Not suggesting an accomplice. Only that circumstantial evidence is that POS and SM were in the same place at the same time. Unless it can be proven that no-one else was also there, then there is reasonable doubt that POS is the offender. The defence only needs to show it is possible that someone else could have been there. In the case of Milat, the location was so remote and out of the way, that it was reasonable to conclude his association with the location was unique enough to implicate him. Mt Clear is a fairly popular location on a Sunday Morning. It is reasonable to posit that another person was also there at around the same time who has not been identified, and POS was just a passer-by with his phone on.

They could have both circumstantial and direct evidence.

 

[31550]

They could have both circumstantial and direct evidence.

There is no doubt in my mind there is direct evidence POS was there at the time. Phone pings would confirm that. But there doesn't seem to be direct evidence of a murder, only circumstantial.

 

[Underarrest_]

There is no doubt in my mind there is direct evidence POS was there at the time. Phone pings would confirm that. But there doesn't seem to be direct evidence of a murder, only circumstantial.

We don’t know what circumstantial evidence they have and they could have both circumstantial and direct evidence of a murder.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

We don’t know what circumstantial evidence they have and they could have both circumstantial and direct evidence of a murder.

Let's bloody well hope so otherwise murdery stuff could be right

 

[Underarrest_]

Let's bloody well hope so otherwise murdery stuff could be right

Where is MurderStuff? Haven’t heard any updates.

 

[Spectrix]

Where is MurderStuff? Haven’t heard any updates.

Last I recall, their work college was trying to decide whether or not to commit more murders. Maybe they decided?

 

[BonzaRam]

Here is a scenario for yas...

They locate the damaged vehicle they are looking for which leads them to the suspect and lo and behold what is sitting on the dashboard of the vehicle? Perhaps a dashcam that recorded what happened but was forgotten about by the suspect whilst in a panic?

 

[Underarrest_]

Last I recall, their work college was trying to decide whether or not to commit more murders. Maybe they decided?

I hope not. I was concerned though when they said that he didn’t scare them. It’s always better to take precautions.

 

[Underarrest_]

Here is a scenario for yas...

They locate the damaged vehicle they are looking for which leads them to the suspect and lo and behold what is sitting on the dashboard of the vehicle? Perhaps a dashcam that recorded what happened but was forgotten about by the suspect whilst in a panic?

Possible.

 

[Underarrest_]

Here is a scenario for yas...

They locate the damaged vehicle they are looking for which leads them to the suspect and lo and behold what is sitting on the dashboard of the vehicle? Perhaps a dashcam that recorded what happened but was forgotten about by the suspect whilst in a panic?

Maybe even another car with dashcam was parked in the area and the occupants were nowhere around, maybe gone for a run.

 

[thumbs_up]

Here is a scenario for yas...

They locate the damaged vehicle they are looking for which leads them to the suspect and lo and behold what is sitting on the dashboard of the vehicle? Perhaps a dashcam that recorded what happened but was forgotten about by the suspect whilst in a panic?

A hard no. At the press conference after they charged him with murder they plead for anyone from the community to come forward if they knew anything.

No need to do that if the whole thing is recorded on video. Would be an "open and shut case" as they say.

 

[Underarrest_]

A hard no. At the press conference after they charged him with murder they plead for anyone from the community to come forward if they knew anything.

No need to do that if the whole thing is recorded on video. Would be an "open and shut case" as they say.

Might be front view dashcam only which also shows them what areas POS has travelled to and specific areas to search. (No recording of removing the body from the back boot/canopy and where he went to from the rear of the car to dispose of the body.)
Of course they might not have dashcam recording of the murder but it’s possible (no matter what the evidence is, circumstantial or direct) they have evidence to tell SM’s family that SM’s been murdered.

 

[31550]

Here is a scenario for yas...

They locate the damaged vehicle they are looking for which leads them to the suspect and lo and behold what is sitting on the dashboard of the vehicle? Perhaps a dashcam that recorded what happened but was forgotten about by the suspect whilst in a panic?

Why would they even be looking for a damaged vehicle, and how would they know they have the right one? There's lots of damaged vehicles in Ballarat. And where do they get a notion a vehicle is even involved in the first place? And what sort of damage?

 

[jason_recliner]

A hard no. At the press conference after they charged him with murder they plead for anyone from the community to come forward if they knew anything.

No need to do that if the whole thing is recorded on video. Would be an "open and shut case" as they say.

Not necessarily. They may be seeking more information so they can find Samantha's body.

 

[Underarrest_]

Why would they even be looking for a damaged vehicle, and how would they know they have the right one? There's lots of damaged vehicles in Ballarat. And where do they get a notion a vehicle is even involved in the first place? And what sort of damage?

Police stated that they were looking for a damaged vehicle. What evidence they have that lead them to the accused vehicle, we don’t know. A guess would be eye witnesses.

 

[31550]

Police stated that they were looking for a damaged vehicle.

Really? When, and who said that?