Australia Samantha Murphy, 51, last seen leaving her property to go for a run in the Canadian State Forest, Ballarat 100km NW of Melbourne, 4 Feb 2024 #7

[Trooper]

Absolutely. By numerous accounts it would appear the accused ingested booze and stimulant drugs in the 12 hours preceding the alleged offense. Who knows what was in the drugs he ingested….

See link below for further info re link between meth (for example) and psychosis…
Meth and Psychosis

In Victorian law, there is provision for this situation. But it boils down to one factor.. did the person take the drugs voluntarily, .. as opposed to being, say, roofed, or slipped drugs intentionally without their knowledge.

Just being high as 6 kites is not mitigation. One is expected to know the risks and act accordingly. Being drunk is no mitigation, unless you were tied down and the booze was fed into you with a hose. Same with methamphetimine, horse crank, cocaine, what ever. The key is, did you knowingly ingest the drug of choice.

 

[ProfCluezo]

In Victorian law, there is provision for this situation. But it boils down to one factor.. did the person take the drugs voluntarily, .. .

Just being high as 6 kites is not mitigation. The key is, did you knowingly ingest the drug of choice.

Great point. However, my Devils advocate response to this is that the accused could, theoretically, claim he ingested the drugs in the belief that they were a certain strength, or a certain purity of substance (when toxic fillers were used for example), such that the drug he ingested was not what he believed it to be… and hence, by extension, the impacts were not what he could have reasonably expected…

I am not making excuses for the alleged offender, just trying to illustrate that ostensibly “solid gold” “heavy duty” evidence can still be challenged.

As far as I know the accused was not tested for drugs or alcohol, nor was any forensic assessment completed at the time….

So who can eliminate the possibility of at minimum a brief psychotic episode impacting mens rea?

 

[Trooper]

Great point. However, my Devils advocate response to this is that the accused could, theoretically, claim he ingested the drugs in the belief that they were a certain strength, or a certain purity of substance (when toxic fillers were used for example), such that the drug he ingested was not what he believed it to be… and hence also that the impacts were beyond what he expected…

I am not making excuses for the offender, just trying to illustrate that ostensibly “solid gold” “heavy duty” evidence can still be challenged.

As far as I know the accused was not tested for drugs or alcohol, nor was any forensic assessment completed at the time….

So who can eliminate the possibility of a psychotic episode impacting mens rea?

He would , then, take his chances with a jury. The jury would decide if that scenario had validity, or was it a crock of you know what... It would be up to his barrister, and probably, if he took the stand , ( which any barrister worth his salt would pray and plead for him to not even consider doing such a thing, because already this young man is not appealing to the general public ) to persuade a jury that this theory has legs.

 

[Algorithm]

Great point. However, my Devils advocate response to this is that the accused could, theoretically, claim he ingested the drugs in the belief that they were a certain strength, or a certain purity of substance (when toxic fillers were used for example), such that the drug he ingested was not what he believed it to be… and hence also that the impacts were beyond what he expected…

I am not making excuses for the alleged offender, just trying to illustrate that ostensibly “solid gold” “heavy duty” evidence can still be challenged.

As far as I know the accused was not tested for drugs or alcohol, nor was any forensic assessment completed at the time….

So who can eliminate the possibility of at minimum a brief psychotic episode impacting mens rea?

That will be the defence of the accused if found guilty to minimise his sentence. Many accused before him have got off lengthy sentences with the same or similar defences so there would be plenty of precedence’s to quote.

 

[JLZ]

Great point. However, my Devils advocate response to this is that the accused could, theoretically, claim he ingested the drugs in the belief that they were a certain strength, or a certain purity of substance (when toxic fillers were used for example), such that the drug he ingested was not what he believed it to be… and hence, by extension, the impacts were not what he could have reasonably expected…

I am not making excuses for the alleged offender, just trying to illustrate that ostensibly “solid gold” “heavy duty” evidence can still be challenged.

As far as I know the accused was not tested for drugs or alcohol, nor was any forensic assessment completed at the time….

So who can eliminate the possibility of at minimum a brief psychotic episode impacting mens rea?

If it can be shown that he hid the body, and was driving, he was in a state to know what he was doing when he killed her.

 

[BoysTown]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1770291775799975954

 

[ProfCluezo]

If it can be shown that he hid the body, and was driving, he was in a state to know what he was doing when he killed her.

I’m not sure this logically follows… someone in a psychotic episode may still be able to drive, (even if dangerously and in an altered mental state), and hiding a body would not (in my opinion) establish that the alleged accused was NOT psychotic….

One could certainly try to argue that it might be less likely that someone in a psychotic episode would be able to drive and hide a body well, but I don’t think either of these facts could totally rule out the possibility that an accused was potentially in a psychotic state of mind.

Note: I am not making excuses for the alleged accused, nor am I stating that this hypothetical scenario applies in this case… I am simply seeking to illustrate some of the possible defenses the accused and his barrister may attempt to mount, even if unlikely, and even where there is incontrovertible video evidence.

JMHO…

 

[JLZ]

I wonder if that statement about the drugs and mental health will age well. It seemed premature at the time IMO.
Perhaps no official diagnosis and no previous charges relating to drugs was enough for his lawyer to make that statement.

I suspect it related to the custodial arrangement, and whether these were factors to be considered in relation to his present care.

 

[Trooper]

That will be the defence of the accused if found guilty to minimise his sentence. Many accused before him have got off lengthy sentences with the same or similar defences so there would be plenty of precedence’s to quote.

Lots have not, as well. One trial I went to, in Melbourne, was a man who , in a moment of bad temper, threw his 5 yr old daughter off the WestGate bridge, right in the middle of peak hour traffic, ... when he entered the court room he was , to all intents and purposes as crazy as a fox. He acted it, he spoke crazy, and he looked crazy. There is no other description that fits that situation. He even , at close to the ending , decided to put up a sort of demonstration of just how far out on the fringe he was by suddenly launching into a long, convoluted rant about some police in Perth, ( 4000 klms away ) .. every one in court just sat , silent as mice , no one breathed loudly , just waiting , waiting for it to finish, it was about as bizarre as court can get...

He got life without parole.. ..

I won't easily forget the judge's words. He said ' You have offended our collective conscience,' and in many ways , this crime against Mrs. Murphy has done the same thing, it has offended our collective conscience, our cohesiveness as a community, our sensibilities are damaged and splintered by such a useless, mindless, cruel crime. It defies categorization, it defies and distorts our general perspectives of each other.

Everyone wants her body found, and bought home to her husband and kids, and this perpetrator sent off to Port Philip Correction centre, and never spoken of again.

 

[Antropophagus]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1770291775799975954

Definitely not the update I wanted...but I'm holding out hope that additional evidence still could have been found as part of the search - evidence the Police need to keep guarded. Fingers crossed.

 

[Lemony]

I suspect it related to the custodial arrangement, and whether these were factors to be considered in relation to his present care.

Yes you're probably right. It's one of those snippets from the media without much context.

 

[drsleuth]

Great point. However, my Devils advocate response to this is that the accused could, theoretically, claim he ingested the drugs in the belief that they were a certain strength, or a certain purity of substance (when toxic fillers were used for example), such that the drug he ingested was not what he believed it to be… and hence, by extension, the impacts were not what he could have reasonably expected…

I am not making excuses for the alleged offender, just trying to illustrate that ostensibly “solid gold” “heavy duty” evidence can still be challenged.

As far as I know the accused was not tested for drugs or alcohol, nor was any forensic assessment completed at the time….

So who can eliminate the possibility of at minimum a brief psychotic episode impacting mens rea?

It could also be argued & reasonably expected , that a person who willingly ingested a substance that you got off any old Joe Blow ( no matter what you believe it to be ) could be anything. You knowingly take the risk IMO

You never really know what you are taking , it's not as if these " street drugs " come in a nice little box with who manufactured them, a batch number, an expiry date, a list of active ingredients, labelled & prescribed to you by a medical practitioner.

Intoxication Defence Criminal Law | Sher Criminal Lawyers

Intoxication is not necessarily a legal defence in criminal law. However, it may negate an element of an offence or prove an element of a statutory defence.

www.sherlawyers.com.au

The chances you take I guess

 

[Skyboy90]

I feel like they are in the right area. Just keep hunting. This is the biggest lead they have had re any sort of specific area. Hopefully answers soon.

 

[Trooper]

Definitely not the update I wanted...but I'm holding out hope that additional evidence still could have been found as part of the search - evidence the Police need to keep guarded. Fingers crossed.

Very disappointing, although it underlines the fact that what ever information they had, it did not come from the alleged killer. He is still keeping his precious secret, and may do so until he draws his last breath. It's all a game , one game he must win.

 

[JLZ]

I’m not sure this logically follows… someone in a psychotic episode may still be able to drive, (even if dangerously and in an altered mental state), and hiding a body would not (in my opinion) establish that the alleged accused was NOT psychotic….

One could certainly try to argue that it might be less likely that someone in a psychotic episode would be able to drive and hide a body well, but I don’t think either of these facts could totally rule out the possibility that an accused was potentially in a psychotic state of mind.

Note: I am not making excuses for the alleged accused, nor am I stating that this hypothetical scenario applies in this case… I am simply seeking to illustrate some of the possible defenses the accused and his barrister may attempt to mount, even if unlikely, and even where there is incontrovertible video evidence.

JMHO…

It would take some explaining though that he wanted to hide the body. The (hypothetical) fact that he did so would tend to suggest that he knew what he did in killing her was wrong. If so he was not mentally impaired to the requisite standard.

 

[Antropophagus]

Continuing on my train of thought from my last post, trying to pull anything positive I can out of this terrible situation: at least LE can now seemingly rule out this area. Also, it's great to see the Police throwing all of the resources they can into the search, including bringing in the dogs. I don't think they'll give up easily.

 

[BreakingNews]

I found an interesting paper while trying to look this answer up.

https://evawintl.org/wp-content/uploads/SAR10-3-1TimeLimitsforConductingaForensicExamination.pdf

clothing and other objects from the crime scene are often the best source of evidence in a sexual assault case (citation 20). Unlike the human body that continues to change as a result of biological needs and hygiene, crime scene evidence such as clothing is typically stable. Therefore, DNA evidence that is recovered from such a source is likely to be detectable for many years and perhaps even decades following a sexual assault.

So even if it has been too long to find evidence in or on Samantha's body, there may still be evidence available on her clothing or anything she might have been wrapped in to conceal her.

Great point. However, my Devils advocate response to this is that the accused could, theoretically, claim he ingested the drugs in the belief that they were a certain strength, or a certain purity of substance (when toxic fillers were used for example), such that the drug he ingested was not what he believed it to be… and hence, by extension, the impacts were not what he could have reasonably expected…

I am not making excuses for the alleged offender, just trying to illustrate that ostensibly “solid gold” “heavy duty” evidence can still be challenged.

As far as I know the accused was not tested for drugs or alcohol, nor was any forensic assessment completed at the time….

So who can eliminate the possibility of at minimum a brief psychotic episode impacting mens rea?

One just needs to see the doped up video of the accused from January to understand that he knew exactly what affect the drugs would have on him. Btw, who is happy for a video of themselves like this to be so freely available months after the event? Or is this a regular occurrence?

 

[Deleted member 340727]

Definitely not the update I wanted...but I'm holding out hope that additional evidence still could have been found as part of the search - evidence the Police need to keep guarded. Fingers crossed.

We all are keeping our fingers crossed. But you don't bury your victims in your backyard. I'm am confident that the LE will find evidence soon. MOO

 

[Kemug]

We all are keeping our fingers crossed. But you don't bury your victims in your backyard. I'm am confident that the LE will find evidence soon. MOO

Unless you are Chad Daybell & Co.

 

[drsleuth]

Maybe they were looking more for the watch & phone today & had the tech finding doggies on the job, it seemed a quick targeted search IMO