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

 

[Underarrest_]

Really? When, and who said that?

Watch under investigation. They gave specific facts of the case based on police information and asked anyone who had seen a damaged vehicle to come forward.

 

[Flog111]

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.

Possibly one of his mates got brought into it without wanting too. His mate might be scared of him and is keeping his mouth shut who knows

 

[thumbs_up]

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

Good point.

 

[31550]

Watch under investigation. They gave specific facts of the case based on police information and asked anyone who had seen a damaged vehicle to come forward.

Under Investigation are not an official police source. Who said (on behalf of the police), that police were searching for a damaged vehicle? As far as I can tell, it's just rumours circulating in the media. These words never came from an official police source associated with the case.

Possibly one of his mates got brought into it without wanting too. His mate might be scared of him and is keeping his mouth shut who knows

Well, maybe, but that's not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that it is entirely possible another person or persons was in the area at the time of the alleged incident, and therefore we cannot conclude beyond reasonable doubt that POS is the actual offender. If police are relying on the co-location evidence alone, it doesn't pass the test of 'reasonable doubt' unless they can positively prove no-one else was in that location at that time (I don't believe they can).

 

[jason_recliner]

If police are relying on the co-location evidence alone, it doesn't pass the test of 'reasonable doubt'...

It's obvious this is not what the police are doing.

 

[thumbs_up]

Under Investigation are not an official police source. Who said (on behalf of the police), that police were searching for a damaged vehicle? As far as I can tell, it's just rumours circulating in the media. These words never came from an official police source associated with the case.

Detective Mark Hatt said it. It's a pretty vague reference though.

Samantha Murphy: police ‘very doubtful’ missing Ballarat woman still alive amid suspicion ‘one or more parties’ involved

New mobile data leads police to comb Mount Clear area for clues nearly three weeks after 51-year-old was last seen

www.google.com

 

[Underarrest_]

Under Investigation are not an official police source. Who said (on behalf of the police), that police were searching for a damaged vehicle? As far as I can tell, it's just rumours circulating in the media. These words never came from an official police source associated with the case.

Well, maybe, but that's not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that it is entirely possible another person or persons was in the area at the time of the alleged incident, and therefore we cannot conclude beyond reasonable doubt that POS is the actual offender. If police are relying on the co-location evidence alone, it doesn't pass the test of 'reasonable doubt' unless they can positively prove no-one else was in that location at that time (I don't believe they can).

Under investigation has the phone/watch analyst for the case on the show. Not a reliable source?
Whether you believe it’s a reliable source or not, evidence either circumstantial or direct, led them to the accused car.

 

[31550]

Under investigation has the phone/watch analyst for the case on the show. Not a reliable source?
Whether you believe it’s a reliable source or not, evidence either circumstantial or direct, led them to the accused car.

Do you know that for a fact or are you just assuming? Maybe other evidence led to POS and then they decided to look at his car? We don't know whether his car was damaged or not.

 

[Underarrest_]

Do you know that for a fact or are you just assuming? Maybe other evidence led to POS and then they decided to look at his car? We don't know whether his car was damaged or not.

My last point stated “evidence either circumstantial or direct, led them to the accused car.”
Your original question was why would police be looking for a damaged car which has been discussed.

 

[31550]

My last point stated “evidence either circumstantial or direct, led them to the accused car.”
Your original question was why would police be looking for a damaged car which has been discussed.

You are the one who keeps talking about a "damaged car". All I am saying is police have never explicitly said they were looking for a "damaged car", or that a "damaged car" is even relevant to this case.
You said in post 4999 "Police stated that they were looking for a damaged vehicle." There is no factual basis for this assertion. Police have never said that.

 

[Percel]

The actual car comment was;

Det acting Supt Mark Hatt renewed calls for information about the case.

“I encourage anyone who does have information that could be relevant to this investigation – whether that’s a person or vehicle seen in the area on that day, something unusual such as a damaged vehicle or property – to please come forward and speak to police or provide the information via Crime Stoppers,” he said.


There was never a specific car they were looking for. It was an ambiguous catch all statement.

 

[craffles]

I’m still backing in covert surveillance and or recordings following on from identifying pings in the same areas as SM

 

[MrsBlueSky]

I’m still backing in covert surveillance and or recordings following on from identifying pings in the same areas as SM

And will that be enough to nail him for murder?
I presume you're talking about covert surveillance of POS after SM died, if it was when she died I would agree the police should have enough evidence for a conviction.

 

[31550]

And will that be enough to nail him for murder?
I presume you're talking about covert surveillance of POS after SM died, if it was when she died I would agree the police should have enough evidence for a conviction.

I don't see covert surveillance after the incident providing any useful information unless POS was observed disposing of evidence, in which case, where is the evidence now? And what sort of surveillance after the incident could have provided evidence of murder (as in a deliberate act)?

I think this case could be far simpler than people here are suggesting. IF POS is indeed responsible for Samantha's murder as police allege, I suggest that police have discovered a connection between the two (e.g. correspondence?) which suggests a possible motive for POS to deliberately attack SM. This would be enough prima facie evidence for a murder charge even without a body or murder weapon. Police have stated they do not believe there is any connection between POS and the family. They have not explicitly ruled out a connection between Samantha and POS (of which the family may have been unaware). In over 90% of murders, the murderer is known to the victim. Occam's razor.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

I don't see covert surveillance after the incident providing any useful information unless POS was observed disposing of evidence, in which case, where is the evidence now? And what sort of surveillance after the incident could have provided evidence of murder (as in a deliberate act)?

I think this case could be far simpler than people here are suggesting. IF POS is indeed responsible for Samantha's murder as police allege, I suggest that police have discovered a connection between the two (e.g. correspondence?) which suggests a possible motive for POS to deliberately attack SM. This would be enough prima facie evidence for a murder charge even without a body or murder weapon. Police have stated they do not believe there is any connection between POS and the family. They have not explicitly ruled out a connection between Samantha and POS (of which the family may have been unaware). In over 90% of murders, the murderer is known to the victim. Occam's razor.

In another murder thread of the two campers, the prosecution don't seem to have a motive, but do have the remains of the bodies and possibly one of the murder weapons.
In SM's case you're suggesting police may have uncovered a motive but there is no body.
Police probably can prove a murder without a body and prove a murder without a motive.
But watching these two murder cases is extraordinary and I can see how people get off with the murder charge and perhaps get a manslaughter sentence or sometimes let off free.
In both cases, I think the police have laid the charges too early.
In SM's case they should have waited for the body.
In the campers case waited for a motive.
One problem is that they are under pressure from the public who cannot understand why someone hasn't been charged and the police are given a lot of evidence.
I think it was craffles who said the covert surveillance may be good in SM's case and as you say that info wouldn't be much good and I say it would only be good if they were covertly watching the actual alleged murder taking place.
And I'm not sure about your prima facie example being sufficient for a guilty verdict.
It gives us something to talk about anyway and it's all just personal opinions.

 

[31550]

In another murder thread of the two campers, the prosecution don't seem to have a motive, but do have the remains of the bodies and possibly one of the murder weapons.
In SM's case you're suggesting police may have uncovered a motive but there is no body.
Police probably can prove a murder without a body and prove a murder without a motive.
But watching these two murder cases is extraordinary and I can see how people get off with the murder charge and perhaps get a manslaughter sentence or sometimes let off free.
In both cases, I think the police have laid the charges too early.
In SM's case they should have waited for the body.
In the campers case waited for a motive.
One problem is that they are under pressure from the public who cannot understand why someone hasn't been charged and the police are given a lot of evidence.
I think it was craffles who said the covert surveillance may be good in SM's case and as you say that info wouldn't be much good and I say it would only be good if they were covertly watching the actual alleged murder taking place.
And I'm not sure about your prima facie example being sufficient for a guilty verdict.
It gives us something to talk about anyway and it's all just personal opinions.

The Russel Lynn 'camper' murder case is an interesting comparison. There doesn't seem to be much doubt that Lynn was the killer, but his murder defence is that the deaths were accidental, and therefore not murder. If the prosecution were able to prove motive (e.g. by some connection between Lynn and the victims), then murder is provable. But it seems there is just conjecture that there was some disagreement between the campers, or that perhaps Lynn wanted to steal something from them.

Proving a definite connection between SM and POS could provide a genuine motive, and therefore murder may be provable (even without a body) purely on the basis of a proven motive, opportunity, and means.

 

[Run n Spread]

I don't see covert surveillance after the incident providing any useful information unless POS was observed disposing of evidence, in which case, where is the evidence now? And what sort of surveillance after the incident could have provided evidence of murder (as in a deliberate act)?

I think this case could be far simpler than people here are suggesting. IF POS is indeed responsible for Samantha's murder as police allege, I suggest that police have discovered a connection between the two (e.g. correspondence?) which suggests a possible motive for POS to deliberately attack SM. This would be enough prima facie evidence for a murder charge even without a body or murder weapon. Police have stated they do not believe there is any connection between POS and the family. They have not explicitly ruled out a connection between Samantha and POS (of which the family may have been unaware). In over 90% of murders, the murderer is known to the victim. Occam's razor.

What could the connection possibly be?
And what would go wrong to motivate a murder?
Only 3 I can think of would be an affair (highly unlikely)
A drug deal(possibly but unlikely)
Some sort of blackmail (but what)
I reckon given the random nature location and time Occam's would lead most likely to chance/random outcome.
Some chance connection is possible especially in a small place.
How would that connection lead to a motive to murder?

 

[Terrafirma]

You are the one who keeps talking about a "damaged car". All I am saying is police have never explicitly said they were looking for a "damaged car", or that a "damaged car" is even relevant to this case.
You said in post 4999 "Police stated that they were looking for a damaged vehicle." There is no factual basis for this assertion. Police have never said that.

I think the damaged car thing comes from Police Statements that said this "They are renewing calls for anyone who has information relevant to the investigation - whether it be a person or vehicle seen in the area that day, or something unusual such as a damaged vehicle or property - to come forward to police." As you can see this could easily be confused while reading over it.

 

[GrayRanga]

The Russel Lynn 'camper' murder case is an interesting comparison. There doesn't seem to be much doubt that Lynn was the killer, but his murder defence is that the deaths were accidental, and therefore not murder. If the prosecution were able to prove motive (e.g. by some connection between Lynn and the victims), then murder is provable. But it seems there is just conjecture that there was some disagreement between the campers, or that perhaps Lynn wanted to steal something from them.

Proving a definite connection between SM and POS could provide a genuine motive, and therefore murder may be provable (even without a body) purely on the basis of a proven motive, opportunity, and means.

The Prosecution do not have to prove a motive.

They only have to provide evidence to the jury that leads the jury to believe beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged offender caused the victim's death with an intent to kill or cause grievous bodiky harm

 

[MrsBlueSky]

The Prosecution do not have to prove a motive.

They only have to provide evidence to the jury that leads the jury to believe beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged offender caused the victim's death with an intent to kill or cause grievous bodiky harm

You're probably right.
But in the camper deaths there could be 10 motives - enough to question what was behind the intent and in my mind that would cast doubt if it was murder or not.
The SM case may be completely without any motive.
My opinion is she was hit by POS's car and he put her into his car and she died.
A bit like the GL matter, he panicked, made some very bad decisions and disposed of the body. That opinion doesn't convince me that POS murdered SM.
In my mind, without a definite motive, there will be reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of actually murdering the person.
Instead of the prosecution making one of the deceased campers look like an extremely angry and volatile old man, they should have been concentrating on creating that impression of the accused and then even without a motive the accused possibly could have killed if incited whatever the situation.
And the same goes for POS.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

There doesn't seem to be much doubt that Lynn was the killer, but his murder defence is that the deaths were accidental, and therefore not murder.

Even if the deaths were accidental then Lynn can't be called a killer.
That is what the jury will decide in another month or so.
He is hoping to walk free from this trial.

 

[thumbs_up]

Even if the deaths were accidental then Lynn can't be called a killer.
That is what the jury will decide in another month or so.
He is hoping to walk free from this trial.

There's a general consensus that he ended their lives, yes?

 

[josephine666]

My guess would be that the accused told someone about the murder and that person quietly went to the police and passed on the detail very early on after Samantha's disappearance. This information provided leads to investigate and subsequently, strong corroborating evidence was then discovered. It would explain why the police are adamant it was murder with little (from the public perspective) evidence. I would expect some red herrings were provided to the media while they investigated to ensure the informant was protected, particularly if they continued to be in contact with the accused during this period.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

There's a general consensus that he ended their lives, yes?

Not sure if you can be taken to court for "general consensus "

 

[Awakening]