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 #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
My initial thoughts (in thread#1) was that the time she was home over Xmas without the rest of the family meant someone could have had very good chance to observe her & possible routines. Scope out the house.

Now, in the last week, I've been thinking it could be someone who was trying to threaten them regarding money (extortion). A triangle - SM, MM & third party. It might even explain why she stayed home - while Mick went on holiday to keep things "normal" for the kids / shield them.

Maybe MM raised the alarm quickly because they (the family) already felt threat. As great as LE is, I do find the fact that they leapt into searching & investing resources for SM so quickly might be mean MM was able to share info or texts (or something) that spoke to motive.
All really good points …

I have even wondered if the Police are working on an extortion attempt in the background ???

Police publicly stating the they have found “no trace of Samantha” …
Meanwhile, in reality, they are actually sending a message to third party saying that they have no clue…. (Letting the third party think that is the case) While all the time the Police are working on it in the background …. And do know exactly what is going on …

This theory could also account for the search being called off ..

I do feel that her disappearance is linked to money and the business somehow ???

But I fear that Samantha may have fought back, and it all went horribly wrong .??

All MOO
 
Agree with the one person idea and not the meet for group or family brunch .. something is totally afoot??
Oh yes agree here!
Interesting, one of her vehicles was reported stolen in 2022, won't give out details, but the car is still registered. It was re-registered around ,6/02 for a year. (You can check vehicle registration in various states.)
I hope I'm not sleuthing too far in, etc.
 
It really stood out to me too.

So we have three times now when Samantha was supposed to be back, 11am, 1pm and now 10am.

Could the 10am and the 11am both be right. One to meet someone, next hour the brunch.

I think the 1pm was a misprint.
I think SM would’ve made it home around 9am ish or there about’s get ready to meet someone at 10am then after this meet finished, make her way to meet group or family members for brunch at 11am.

Does anyone know the location of 10am meet was meant to be ? And where the 11am brunch was being held ??
 
Would there have been enough time to get something done like nails or a quick hair trim at 10am.

Though I suppose the salon would have let someone know if she had an appointment and didn't show up, after the news of her disappearance went publlc
 
Last edited:
IMOO…..

regarding the 10am meet I’m confident others would’ve known she was meeting someone at this time ?

Interesting the alarm wasn’t raised earlier than 1pm ??
Failing to show up for 10am meet ?

I assume whoever she was meeting would’ve thought it odd a no show at 10am and didn’t make a call to others to check in on her whereabouts?

Something isn’t adding up here regarding the timeline against the time she was reported as missing ?

Unless I’m not cross referencing both situations correctly with the information at hand?
 
Does anyone know the location of 10am meet was meant to be ? And where the 11am brunch was being held ??
No … so far there are no further details on these events, nor with whom Samantha was having brunch with …. Excepting that it has been referred to as a “family brunch” …
 
Would there have been enough time to get something done like nails or a quick hair trim at 10am.

Though I suppose the salon would have let someone know if she had an appointment and didn't show up, after the news of her disappearance went publc
The 10am appointment vs 11am brunch might explain why there is some confusion on WS about the brunch. It seems there are two interpretations on WS thread about the 11am brunch:

1. A “family brunch” (maybe with MM and the kids, or maybe other family). After SM didn’t show up in time to attend, MM grew concerned and presumably attempted calls to SM, called friends, neighbours, I expect drove the likely running route, checked Find My app etc and eventually grew so concerted he called Police in.

2. A “girls brunch” with friends, causing the friends to call MM when SM didn’t show, either immediately at 11am or later say 1pm after lunch. MM then called the Police (presumably after similar steps and attempts noted above) who had a search plane in the air I think by 3.30ish according to an earlier poster. Which I always thought was a remarkably swift response from police.

Now I wonder perhaps there was a 10am coffee with friend(s) planned before the 11am family brunch. Friends called MM (at least 1 hr earlier than we previously assumed) thus getting the family (pre Police) search etc underway much sooner that we previously assumed. More in line for me with Police air wing mobilising to fly over the forest around 3.30 / 4pm.

Also resolves why friends (not family) called MM to raise the alarm. I’ve always found that at odds with the description of the brunch as a family brunch.
 
No … so far there are no further details on these events, nor with whom Samantha was having brunch with …. Excepting that it has been referred to as a “family brunch” …
I thought when it was first mentioned, it was said that the brunch was with friends.

Something made me think that, and then later on the reports were saying it was with family.
 
Interesting the alarm wasn’t raised earlier than 1pm ??
Hard to know if the 1pm time is correct ???

Inspector Bob Heaney said the alarm was raised almost immediately when Murphy didn’t arrive for a family brunch after leaving her Eureka Street home for a run in the forest about 7am on Sunday.

Which would appear it wasn’t that long after 11:00am when the alarm was raised ???



 
then you would know what exercising for at least an hour without water could do to someone.

Heatstroke is real.
Yes, heatstroke is real but unlikely in this case given:
a) SM was apparently a seasoned and regular runner/jogger running those distances.
b) Many folks (including myself in Brisbane) run 10k without water including during summertime and do not get heatstroke.
c) SM was running in the morning with lower temps.
d) SM was running in a forest so would have gained some shading from the trees.
e) An extensive search along the tracks (and presumably some distance from the tracks) has found no trace of SM.
 
Credit to Eptio from Thread 1 here are the Air Wing travel logs:

Sunday 4th February movements of VH-PVO (POL30)
15:38 - Begins flying towards the Ballarat area from Flinders (roughly 136km away)
16:18 - Arrives near Buninyong and begins searching the area around Union Jack Reserve
17:04 - Leaves north towards Ballarat aerodrome
18:02 - Departs Ballarat Aerodrome and begins doing laps of the properties between Yankie Flat Rd and Woowookarung Regional Park.
18:37 - Begins a final single fly over Canadian Plantation north towards her property and back south.
18:47 - Departs the Ballarat area en route to Melbourne.

Sorry Eptio I wasn’t sure how to repost from Thread 1 to Thread 2, I still have my WS L plates.
 
Last edited:
I think heatstroke is a definite possibility.
She'd recently had Covid and was just getting back into running.

For some people it takes quite awhile to recover.
After I think I had it, it took 5 weeks before I was able to walk for any distance, and it was only once I had gone a distance I realised I needed to go back home. It was a struggle getting back.
I had thought I was fine til I set out on the walk.

I think it's absolute madness to walk anywhere in summertime here without water. No matter what time of day.

The question though is if she collapsed, where is she?
 
Two things I’ve been wondering about:

1. Did SM wear sunglasses or a cap on her runs. Because those items could be something for searchers to look out for or if someone is suddenly in possession of such things.

2. SM & MM are of the age and apparently means to have an investment property or properties and wondering about the possibility of a disgruntled renter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
244
Guests online
3,953
Total visitors
4,197

Forum statistics

Threads
591,477
Messages
17,952,286
Members
228,504
Latest member
mj175
Back
Top