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 #8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reading this makes me think the police are lost where to go from here and staged the searches and media interactions as a "BLUFF" in an attempt to make the accused confess before someone else reveals the location (so not to miss out on parole).

Just the "VIBE" of the article, IMO.

I rest my case.

I think the police are looking at others...
 
Seems he has decided that his silence serves his self-preservation better than any declarations and protests of innocence.
Can think of a recent case involving Australian politicial staff where the accused said nothing at all and was in the end allowed to walk free.

Seems to be a winning strategy for some. Give nothing and let the prosecution attempt to argue their case based on very little to the jury.
 
Can think of a recent case involving Australian politicial staff where the accused said nothing at all and was in the end allowed to walk free.

Seems to be a winning strategy for some. Give nothing and let the prosecution attempt to argue their case based on very little to the jury.
I can see the appeal. I mean if you’re guilty, saying nothing could feel safer and smarter than putting a lot of effort into spinning messy tales.
 
I am not sure what your post is getting at? Is there something nefarious or suspicious about changing real estate agents?
Not that it matters in the scope of this current criminal matter, but sometimes listings expire. Sometimes agents and owners don't mesh. Sometimes the listing agent cancels the listing themselves for various reasons. Sometimes when there has been criminal activity suspected in or around the home, that can turn people away as well. Houses get stigmatized by their occupants and sometimes by what has occurred or could be alleged to have occurred at properties. People usually just don't want to deal with the drama that ensues. JMO
 
I agree an unhealthy dose of “ego” seems incontrovertible here. But is such a degree of “ego” synonymous with a healthy, well functioning individual? Or might it reflect layers of wounds across many years, that have festered and hardened into what we are seeing today?

Therein lies the question…

Let’s wait and see
I agree: let us wait and see what other variables interplay here. The 'self' may well have retreated and this 'noncooperation' could well be a long exercise in the future. I tried to bring the psychiatrist into the foreground here to provide context as to the reality of what has happened and context of the situation at hand. To think otherwise is ludicrous. MOO
 
it was extremely hot that sunday too, so digging a grave in that heat would be exhausting and requiring a shower afterwards unless there was water nearby?
there was footage early of police taking sap? samples from the base of a tree, wonder if that has been matched to any vehicles?
 
Can think of a recent case involving Australian politicial staff where the accused said nothing at all and was in the end allowed to walk free.

Seems to be a winning strategy for some. Give nothing and let the prosecution attempt to argue their case based on very little to the jury.
i think its the best strategy to stay silent, neither admitting or denying, its up to the police to prove your guilt not your innocence
 
You'd hope so, but would it have been? We learned already that Victoria police don't have cadaver dogs, so it's not likely that they had a dog out to sniff around any of the properties where PS had access. Would they have dug up a garden just to be sure Sam wasn't buried in it?
Yes I reckon they would've. They had several warrants. They would've been zoning in on anything that suggested recent changes. They might even have tech or equipment that can detect anomalies. I'm not certain about the efficacy of scans compared to actual manual excavations but this article I've linked below suggests that LE and anthropologists and related experts are on the way to eliminating unnecessary time consuming labour in general.
Title:"The application of dual energy X-ray soil screening in forensic archaeology"
Edited for accuracy.
 
Last edited:
It is possible to enter a Not Guilty plea and then hours before your actual trial at the Supreme Court gets underway, one changes one's plea to Guilty, then the trial is abandoned, and it goes straight to the judges sentencing. Summing up of the case and sentencing, we still get the summing up.

Of course, one gets a discount for saving the court time and money, even though it is a last minute exercise, it still gets in there for the discount. If you go to trial, pleading not guilty, and you are found guilty, you can appeal. But you get no discount on your sentence, which usually means , the years at which point you can apply for parole. Which does not mean you get parole, you are merely allowed to apply for it.

Everyone can appeal, there is no qualifiction for that. Not a lot of appeals get thru, though, there has to be new evidence, usually, or gross misjudgement by the prosecutor, or one's own barrister, or even a cranky judge.

So he could go quite a long ways yet on a Not Guilty position. Right up until the morning of.
Thanks Troops. But has the accused actually pleaded Not Guilty? I don't think he has had to enter a plea yet.
 
Might not even be August, they may have further committal mentions before he enters a plea.


At this point, one of five things will occur:
  1. Your matter will be adjourned for a further committal mention or committal case conference. This basically means that the process is put on hold, often to allow further negotiations to occur.
  2. Your matter will be adjourned to a contested committal (committal hearing). If this occurs leave must be sought to cross-examine relevant witnesses at the committal mention stage.
  3. Your matter will be adjourned for a summary jurisdiction application which is heard at a further committal mention.
  4. Your matter will be adjourned directly for either trial or guilty plea in the County Court or Supreme Court.
  5. You matter will be adjourned directly to the County Court, where a form 198A will be required prior to a first directions hearing. This only relates to complainants who were cognitively impaired or a child at the time of charge.
What happens if someone remains silent and refuses to enter a plea?
 
Thanks Troops. But has the accused actually pleaded Not Guilty? I don't think he has had to enter a plea yet.
No, not yet, BN . AUG 6th , I think. At least, he has the opportunity to do so then, via his legal rep. I don't think he has to , but he has the option. I think that they ( VIC Gov and Corrections ) will deem it less disruptive to have him appear via Zoom, than in person. He misses out on the horsefloat ride from Remand to Court, but it probably would be better all round. Probably , most of his mentions, and hearings, and summary stuff will be done with him not appearing in person , but by video, , except at his trial, then it's all hands on deck.
 
What happens if someone remains silent and refuses to enter a plea?
It generally is taken as a not guilty plea. Things roll on. I can't think of an occasion when it has been taken as a guilty plea. Saying nothing buys you nothing. The court and justice and the entire panoply of jurisprudence rolls on without your input, should you so desire. It does not stop merely because you do not make a plea.
 
It generally is taken as a not guilty plea. Things roll on. I can't think of an occasion when it has been taken as a guilty plea. Saying nothing buys you nothing. The court and justice and the entire panoply of jurisprudence rolls on without your input, should you so desire. It does not stop merely because you do not make a plea.

Yes, the Vic Act says ....

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009 - SECT 64

Refusal to plead
(1) If, when an accused is asked to plead to a charge, the accused will not answer directly to the charge, the Magistrates' Court may order that a plea of not guilty be entered on behalf of the accused.
(2) A plea of not guilty entered under subsection (1) has the same effect as if the accused in fact had pleaded not guilty.

 
Yes, the Vic Act says ....

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009 - SECT 64

Refusal to plead
(1) If, when an accused is asked to plead to a charge, the accused will not answer directly to the charge, the Magistrates' Court may order that a plea of not guilty be entered on behalf of the accused.
(2) A plea of not guilty entered under subsection (1) has the same effect as if the accused in fact had pleaded not guilty.

The whole system just rolls right on over the top of you , if you refuse to make a plea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
142
Guests online
3,027
Total visitors
3,169

Forum statistics

Threads
594,188
Messages
18,000,282
Members
229,336
Latest member
TCPstudy
Back
Top