Australia Samantha Murphy, 51, last seen leaving her property to go for a run in the Canadian State Forest, Ballarat, 4 Feb 2024 *Arrest* #11

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
As I mentioned before. If he is on the way to disposing of the body, why risk a stop and not just dispose of the phone with the body?
( above selected by me for brevity only)

Hi Scooby, you referenced my post in your reply, yet I respectfully wonder if you read the entirety of my suggestions ( I did apologise for its length) as I believe I provided reasonable ‘rebuttals’ for your positings.

E.G. in the case of your above, I believe he deliberately disposed of the phone in a different region to where her body is. He knew he could ‘locate’ her phone by having it Ping in that location.
 
( above selected by me for brevity only)

Hi Scooby, you referenced my post in your reply, yet I respectfully wonder if you read the entirety of my suggestions ( I did apologise for its length) as I believe I provided reasonable ‘rebuttals’ for your positings.

E.G. in the case of your above, I believe he deliberately disposed of the phone in a different region to where her body is. He knew he could ‘locate’ her phone by having it Ping in that location.
Sorry Warshawski, I was just rambling on, I shouldn't have done a reply, but started new.
I still find it strange he didn't dispose of the phone with her body or destroy it completely when he disposed of her and left it with her.
I still think, someone or others have some involvement
 
By the 4th March;

“Police revealed they have been wading through 12,000 hours of CCTV and on Monday confirmed they have 770 pieces of information.”

Within one month. That blows my mind.

Re: the pouncing

“Mr Gregory expected there could be a team of up to 100 people trawling through the phone data and then chasing down the people identified.
"They're going to have to find the people, ask what they're doing in the area and follow up.

Could the police have already contacted PS about his movements due to his phone proximity & activity in the area on the day?
Or did surveillance & bugging determine the need to move in when they did? The initial suppression order bounced between concerns for his mental health and his dad’s privacy. Maybe he was becoming agitated or flighty.


This is when we become so grateful for technology, imo.
But once Flags appear, the contacting of people is all manual, and to get it right, skilled investigators are required.

I agree, PS could well have been spoken to prior to his arrest, as perhaps were others in the vicinity on 4th Feb. But I think as you say, solidifying Data in all forms then put him clearly in the hot seat, so they made the move. . better to do it early at home ‘in the some what remoteness’ than in the public busyness of the work day surrounds etc.
And I can’t help wonder if his family were simultaneously paid a warning visit, given how quickly they moved on.
 
Sorry Warshawski, I was just rambling on, I shouldn't have done a reply, but started new.
I still find it strange he didn't dispose of the phone with her body or destroy it completely when he disposed of her and left it with her.
I still think, someone or others have some involvement
OK no worries.

But I am interested - if you killed someone & disposed of their body - would you be happy that all trails quickly led to the finding of that body, with your incriminating DNA all over it etc.

Or would you instead start to consider what means you may have available to you to throw searchers off the scent of such body ?

Full disclosure here, I’ve no experience as a Murderer, but I reckon if I went to the trouble of hiding the body, I’d be keen to do all I could to ensure it wasn’t found.

(ummm - but some murders just cover them with sticks or whatever in an easy to find place - now we go to profiling. I need to stop!)
 
The final ping if it exists (hasn't been refuted by police) is not consistent with police allegations that Samantha was killed at Mt Clear.
It is circumstantial evidence that she may have been alive later that day in a different location.
So police would need to establish how this ping occurred, otherwise there is reasonable doubt that she was murdered at Mt Clear.
If the ping doesn't exist, they don't have this problem - they can allege that the accused disabled Samantha's phone when he killed her

Similarly, the 5pm ping doesn't prove she was alive in Buninyong at 5pm. But it opens the door of possibility.
Unless police can prove to the court that the phone was not in Samantha's possession at the time, and that it was in possession of the accused, then there is reasonable doubt that she was murdered earlier at Mt Clear.



But the 5pm Buninyong last phone ping, how did this happen if the phone was in the dam at 5pm? Or was it 5pm when the phone was tossed into the dam?

Did Samantha really take the phone / wallet with her on the run? Or just her watch?

The reaction from the police when they found her phone is still bizarre to me. This phone thing really has me thinking.

The final ping, though, still seems incongruous with any of the theories going round.

But why throw the phone at all?

As I mentioned before. If he is on the way to disposing of the body, why risk a stop and not just dispose of the phone with the body?

If he is on the way back, and presumably realised he still had the phone, why choose that location when he could easily destroy and hide the phone in a bin back in town, a mine shaft or destroy it completely?
Police (what we know)still have not found her watch

Have police done a tower dump from Buninyong tower to locate all devices within pinging distance (entering / leaving) of the dam location on the morning/afternoon Samantha's disappeared?

Is the accused the owner of one of these devices? What about his close contacts?

But If the accused still had Samantha with him, the smart thing would be to disable the phone and dispose of it with her body at the same time.
Stopping and chucking it into a random dam only increases the chances of getting caught.

And we don't know for sure it was the
accused who put the phone in the dam.
BBM : Yes she took her phone.

The mother-of-three was carrying her phone and wearing a smartwatch at the time.


 
OK no worries.

But I am interested - if you killed someone & disposed of their body - would you be happy that all trails quickly led to the finding of that body, with your incriminating DNA all over it etc.

Or would you instead start to consider what means you may have available to you to throw searchers off the scent of such body ?

Full disclosure here, I’ve no experience as a Murderer, but I reckon if I went to the trouble of hiding the body, I’d be keen to do all I could to ensure it wasn’t found.

(ummm - but some murders just cover them with sticks or whatever in an easy to find place - now we go to profiling. I need to stop!)

But It seems the accused was meticulous in hiding the body, murder weapon, and other evidence relating to the crime. But totally careless and nonchalant about the phone.

Where were all the failed attempts at other properties along this road, or other roads? Did they just get lucky? Or was it staged?

But they suddenly switched from 'not giving a running commentary to a very specific and detailed public display.

And we don't know how long the phone has been at the dam, If It's just recently been placed in there after the accused has been arrested ?

If anything, finding the phone without finding Samantha opens up more possibilities, including one where the phone was disposed of by someone other than the killer.
 
Questions, how can they do that? Just because no other phone pinged?

This requires a motive, or other explanation (beyond reasonable doubt) which proves the accused acted deliberately or with the knowledge that his actions were likely to cause Samantha's death.

Again, how can they do this without an eyewitness or physical evidence or a confession?

Again, how do you do that without a body?
We’ve discussed this a few times, especially when PS was charged, and deduced that there must be visual (and audible) footage of the crime itself and/or clear and irrefutable evidence that Sam’s attack (and resultant demise) was deliberate. Whatever has been found has provided Vicpol with the confidence to charge PS with murder. They have possibly watched the attack. If so and if PS’s phone was off, then it’s been captured by another means. Read earlier chats if you like when you have time.
ps I’ve learned through this that legally, motive doesn’t matter.
 
But It seems the accused was meticulous in hiding the body, murder weapon, and other evidence relating to the crime. But totally careless and nonchalant about the phone.

Where were all the failed attempts at other properties along this road, or other roads? Did they just get lucky? Or was it staged?

But they suddenly switched from 'not giving a running commentary to a very specific and detailed public display.

And we don't know how long the phone has been at the dam, If It's just recently been placed in there after the accused has been arrested ?

If anything, finding the phone without finding Samantha opens up more possibilities, including one where the phone was disposed of by someone other than the killer.
I don't think he was meticulous in hiding the body. I think he just got lucky. MOO
 
I don't think he was meticulous in hiding the body. I think he just got lucky. MOO

Me, too. Sloppy murder = sloppy disposal. There is just so much forest and bushland in that region that he (so far) has been lucky.

But only lucky to a certain extent. Because Sam's phone has been found, and that doesn't often/always happen. And they KNOW he killed Sam through whatever means they know that.

imo
 
The police won't be telling us everything. We don't know what new info they have collected now seven months on..
It's not enough just to prove that the accused and Samantha were in the same place at the same time.

They need to also prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that nobody else was there.
Questions, how can they do that? Just because no other phone pinged?
Someone else could have been there but didn't carry a phone

They need to prove intent.

This requires a motive, or other explanation (beyond reasonable doubt) which proves the accused acted deliberately or with the knowledge that his actions were likely to cause Samantha's death.

Again, how can they do this without an eyewitness or physical evidence or a confession?

They need to prove that the accused actions did in fact cause Samantha'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).

This is what will be playing out ...
There are quite a few folks currently serving life, never to be released, in prisons in all states of AU, Bradley Murphy, for one, who would entirely agree with your reasoning, as would Keli Lane. Keli's convoluted response to claims she murdered her baby daughter rest on no eye witness, no body, no confession....

Chris Dawson has spent about 3 million dollars, and a brothers reputation on positing the exact same argument, how could he be guilty with no eye witness, no body, huh? And so on, there they sit, in prison for life. no parole. Mainly because circumstantial evidence is not in any sense second class evidence but carries as much weight as physical evidence in court room.

In this instance, and it is unusual, but that does not relegate the claim to the backwoods, VICPOL claim, without a coroner seeing the body, without a confession, without a motive, without a background of agitation and conflict, that Stephenson murdered Mrs Murphy, at a concise place, at a concise time, alone, and with intent ( he 'attacked her ' )..

It has all been played out before, probably will be again , VICPOL has some evidence that clearly points to Mrs Murphy being murdered by Stephenson, otherwise the Dept of Public Prosecution would not proceed with the charge of murder. There has been no resiling of this charge, no evidence of horsetrading to get more info from Stephenson, VICPOL appear to be supremely equipped with enough stuff to march on without any input from Stephenson, at all . Not a word .

VICPOL, and the DPP, and the judge, and the jury are not involved or interested in motive. Motive is a concept that the court does not need to make an adjudication. Motive is nice to talk about, it gives some sort of meaning to horrible happenings, but it is a slippery concept, only the killer knows the motive, and even that is not set in concrete, some have no idea themselves why they kill. Of course, after lots of psychotherapy and truth serums and stuff like that, a motive can slowly emerge, maybe, or one that the killer can accept of himself, perhaps.... but generally, the 'motive' has no bearing on the actual victim's entity...
 
FWIW I don't think the phone was thrown from the road.. I did, at first, but they found 'other artifacts'.... ( this word drives me spare ) type unknown, or, undisclosed... logically, it would be a very lucky thrower who landed the phone AND the artifacts in the same place, so I have come to think those things,, the phone, and the 'artifacts' were thrown from inside the fence, while on the property at some point.

Not necessarily by Stephenson, either. Maybe someone he gave the phone to, with a new SIM card, or someone who found it serendipitously , then realised what it was and hurled it away, not wanting to be part of it at all.....
 
Me, too. Sloppy murder = sloppy disposal. There is just so much forest and bushland in that region that he (so far) has been lucky.

But only lucky to a certain extent. Because Sam's phone has been found, and that doesn't often/always happen. And they KNOW he killed Sam through whatever means they know that.

imo
VICPOL knew that Samantha Murphy was dead with such unarguable confidence, the entire search for her, consisting of Army, Naval cadets, Police, State Emergency Services, Fire Brigade, Scouts, general public was called off. One hell of a large call, to stop a search for a person, without utter certitude as to their disposition.

In addition, at this point, the police claimed she was not only dead , but murdered, the Missing Persons Squad was stood down and the Homicide Squad was hauled in, and then about a week or two later, the suspect is hauled in.


Stephenson has made some monumental errors, .. compounding errors, he is no mastermind man of the forest - ghost killer of the harvest moon thing. He is just your ordinary idiot who thought he might just get away with it. For why, no one knows, and really, no one cares why he did it. It won't matter to the judge.
 
So,
Does the suspect currently have 2 lawyers?

Ms Moya O'Brien
and
Mr Paul Galbally?

Phew!
Lawyered up to his eyeballs :rolleyes:
 
So,
Does the suspect currently have 2 lawyers?

Ms Moya O'Brien
and
Mr Paul Galbally?

Phew!
Lawyered up to his eyeballs :rolleyes:
He has 4 at the last count.. Mr David Tamanika, of Ballarat, his instructing solicitor, ( he instructs the Barristers of Mr Stephensons requirements ) lady Barrister from Werribee on the traffic count, Ms O'Brien, an associate Barrister from Galbally Brothers Chambers, and Mr Paul Galbally, as associate Barrister to Ms O'Brien

All are lawyers, 3 are lawyers AND Barristers.

You have to be a lawyer before you can be a Barrister.

Nothing unusual in that number, at all. Quite the norm.
 
Last edited:
'So the defendant was recovering from a drug and alcohol fueled bender.'... this is not , so far, a designated concrete occurrence. Apparently, he attended a birthday party for an 80 yr old the Saturday night, he had been filmed on a drug and alcohol interlude back in January, these two events should not be conflated. at this point.

Not to say, that 80 yr old's birthday parties should not be alcohol and drug fuelled, I certainly intend mine to be, and much more, it's a free country, pay your taxes, do what you want, but generally speaking , they are usually staid and subdued affairs, on the whole....
You're right in that the 80th and the drug fueled bender are two very different events. However, someone who goes on a drug fueled bender, can quite easily go on more, and quite regularly. I can easily see him fulfilling his obligation to attend "Grandpa's" 80th, either stone cold sober, or taking a little hit to get him through the yawn fest, then moving on to the nightclubs afterwards, where his party boy side emerges. MOO


But why throw the phone at all?

As I mentioned before. If he is on the way to disposing of the body, why risk a stop and not just dispose of the phone with the body?

If he is on the way back, and presumably realised he still had the phone, why choose that location when he could easily destroy and hide the phone in a bin back in town, a mine shaft or destroy it completely?
Police (what we know)still have not found her watch

Have police done a tower dump from Buninyong tower to locate all devices within pinging distance (entering / leaving) of the dam location on the morning/afternoon Samantha's disappeared?

Is the accused the owner of one of these devices? What about his close contacts?

But If the accused still had Samantha with him, the smart thing would be to disable the phone and dispose of it with her body at the same time.
Stopping and chucking it into a random dam only increases the chances of getting caught.

And we don't know for sure it was the
accused who put the phone in the dam.
Shortened by me.
There could be many reasons why the phone was not with Sam. Perhaps it was forgotten in the panic of disposing of her, perhaps it had slipped out of her pocket and not even noticed until after he'd dumped her body, perhaps he planned on using it as a red herring, perhaps part of him was worried that the police could track her phone and lead them right to her so wanted it elsewhere, perhaps he wanted it as trophy, perhaps someone else disposed of the phone, perhaps he intended to use it to masquerade as her and imply she'd just literally run off etc
 
Refocus of map

I have drawn a map using the location of house sit as the centre of a 12 km radius. I have used this radius as the known locations for both the phone and where Samantha Murphy disappeared fall within this area. I have included my area of interest on this map.


Screenshot 2024-09-02 at 8.59.07 AM.jpeg

The area of interest I selected for a number of reason.
1. It's in the opposite direction to where the phone is found.
2. It's within 12 km residence at the time of the disappearance.
3. It has not been searched.
4. It contains recreation areas including picnic areas, camping site, walks, waterfalls, trails that would likely have visited when he was younger. Its only 20 minutes from Ballarat.
5. It's the location of an assault on a female runner 1 year earlier.

Screenshot 2024-09-02 at 9.58.20 AM.jpeg

Looking more closely shows a network of trails. Many of these trails come quite close to the gorges. Gorges , wells, mineshafts, watercourses are often associated with body placement. This area is rich in these features.

A closer look at the road network in the gorge country is where I would look first. Included in this area is a 1 km radius. I have added this image to show there are lots of trails not even marked.


Screenshot 2024-09-02 at 10.49.45 AM.jpeg
 
You're right in that the 80th and the drug fueled bender are two very different events. However, someone who goes on a drug fueled bender, can quite easily go on more, and quite regularly. I can easily see him fulfilling his obligation to attend "Grandpa's" 80th, either stone cold sober, or taking a little hit to get him through the yawn fest, then moving on to the nightclubs afterwards, where his party boy side emerges. MOO



Shortened by me.
There could be many reasons why the phone was not with Sam. Perhaps it was forgotten in the panic of disposing of her, perhaps it had slipped out of her pocket and not even noticed until after he'd dumped her body, perhaps he planned on using it as a red herring, perhaps part of him was worried that the police could track her phone and lead them right to her so wanted it elsewhere, perhaps he wanted it as trophy, perhaps someone else disposed of the phone, perhaps he intended to use it to masquerade as her and imply she'd just literally run off etc
No, doesn't sit with me. The last thing you want after you murdered someone is to still have the phone. I can't understand why he just didn't destroy it, throw it down a mine shaft etc
But to then leave all her ID in it and throw it carelessly into someone's dam
We don't know if the accused has done this, someone else could have ?

There is no direct evidence that we know of linking drug use or abuse to Samantha's disappearance
It is unlikely that a drug-crazed offender could and would have successfully concealed the body in such a short time without detection.
 
The police can't just search randomly. They need some intelligence to push them towards an area IMO. A lot of the searches they have undertaken, have been described as targeted.

There are also searches that they have not made public.

Interestingly, the search in the Enfield State Park was the first time they used the cadaver dogs. Other times they have used technology detection dogs etc


Victoria Police said Thursday's search would focus on an area highlighted by "intelligence derived from a number of sources".

"Since Samantha's disappearance over two months ago, a range of searches and other enquiries have been undertaken in the Ballarat area as part of this investigation," he said.

"This includes extensive large-scale searches such as we have planned this week, but also smaller targeted searches focused in very specific areas.
 
No, doesn't sit with me. The last thing you want after you murdered someone is to still have the phone. I can't understand why he just didn't destroy it, throw it down a mine shaft etc
But to then leave all her ID in it and throw it carelessly into someone's dam
We don't know if the accused has done this, someone else could have ?

There is no direct evidence that we know of linking drug use or abuse to Samantha's disappearance
It is unlikely that a drug-crazed offender could and would have successfully concealed the body in such a short time without detection.
Maybe he didn't even initially realise she had her phone? ( if it was in a side pocket of her pants- which is where I think it might have been) Did he than think oh crap.... she might have had a phone on her?

I also wonder if he used the phone to ping in multiple places, to, for want of a better words, lead to cops on a "wild goose chase" & finally dumped it where it was found, maybe in a rush as by this time people where out everywhere......I also imagine he may have been a bit paranoid by this stage.

So much we don't know. Trying to put the puzzle together with so many missing pieces.

All IMO & just my rambling thoughts........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
127
Guests online
473
Total visitors
600

Forum statistics

Threads
606,279
Messages
18,201,474
Members
233,796
Latest member
StephNTexas
Back
Top