Samantha Murphy Ballarat * Patrick Orren Stephenson Charged With Murder

Remove this Banner Ad

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 www.bigfooty.com

The Murder of Rebecca Young - Ballarat

The Murder of Hannah McGuire - Ballarat * Lachie Young charged



Allegedly
 
Last edited:
Couch Coach said:
Not enough to charge him with murder though?

The police must have more than that.
Click to expand...

That and his refusal to answer questions about SM probably would be enough to charge him. Different story whether it is enough to convict with a jury. Police obviously on the hunt for further evidence and are chasing a body.


I would say to charge the alleged suspect police must have been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt he was in the area at the same time as SM.
 
Anja_Nees said:
It’s counterintuitive, but if the police wrongly have you in their sights (and sometimes that happens), if their case has gaps sometimes the best thing to do is just shut up. A slip up in a long interview might make things much worse.

Another hypothetical is that you’ve been up to no good (which might be what got you in their sights in the first place) and might need to say what you were up to to get out of trouble.

Suspect none of the above applies here but there’s a reason juries are directed not to draw inferences from a refusal to cooperate.

Having said all of that, you have the option of giving a statement then answering no questions. If he were innocent and could explain it then he could work out a non-implicating statement then shut up. He hasn’t done that and has apparently spent 30 hours with them. Waddles, quacks, walks like a duck etc.
Click to expand...
It sounds like possibly you are confused about the 'right to remain silent', and 'making unsworn statements'.

Australia has no "constitutional" right to remain silent like the USA, however you are not obligated by law to answer police questions. You can remain silent until they let you go. But often this will just antagonise police into charging you with something.

When you go to court as a witness you are obliged to answer all questions put to you, and you may be directed to answer or be found in contempt of court.

The exception is when a defendant makes an 'unsworn statement' after all other evidence has been presented. This statement may be read out by the defendant. It is not made under oath, and the defendant cannot be cross-examined. As such, unsworn statements are usually not given much weight by judges or juries, and are not often used these days (I haven't heard of one being made for a while). Unsworn statements apply only in court trials. If the defendant is called as a witness (gives sworn testimony), then they can be cross-examined.

You cannot make an 'unsworn statement' to police in an interview. In fact, as the cautions goes, "Anything you say (to police) may be used against you!"
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Interesting article about the mineshafts that are being searched in Ballarat. Apparently there are thousands of them.

www.abc.net.au

There are countless mineshafts in the area searched for signs of Samantha Murphy. This is what it's like inside them

Raymond Shaw says he has spent the past five-and-a-half weeks uncovering and exploring disused mine shafts in a determined effort to find anything that helps locate the Ballarat mum.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

Mr Shaw said he had located at least 100 mineshafts during his searches in Ballarat bushland during the past five weeks and he had been down about 60.
Click to expand...
Could be a slow search
 
31550 said:
It sounds like possibly you are confused about the 'right to remain silent', and 'making unsworn statements'.

Australia has no "constitutional" right to remain silent like the USA, however you are not obligated by law to answer police questions. You can remain silent until they let you go. But often this will just antagonise police into charging you with something.

When you go to court as a witness you are obliged to answer all questions put to you, and you may be directed to answer or be found in contempt of court.

The exception is when a defendant makes an 'unsworn statement' after all other evidence has been presented. This statement may be read out by the defendant. It is not made under oath, and the defendant cannot be cross-examined. As such, unsworn statements are usually not given much weight by judges or juries, and are not often used these days (I haven't heard of one being made for a while). Unsworn statements apply only in court trials. If the defendant is called as a witness (gives sworn testimony), then they can be cross-examined.

You cannot make an 'unsworn statement' to police in an interview. In fact, as the cautions goes, "Anything you say (to police) may be used against you!"
Click to expand...
I’m not confused about any of that. Your post barely relates to mine at all and I’m not sure if you’ve copied and pasted part of it from somewhere else. I didn’t even mention the presumption of innocence.

The topic was whether an innocent person would cooperate in the interview as opposed to giving a no comment interview.

You’re entitled to give police a written statement as a suspect if you want. You can also remain silent or participate in an interview. It is not uncommon for suspects who give a statement but declined to participate in police questioning. I don’t know what tangent you’ve gone on. This isn’t about the trial at all.
 
Anja_Nees said:
I’m not confused about any of that. Your post barely relates to mine at all and I’m not sure if you’ve copied and pasted part of it from somewhere else. I didn’t even mention the presumption of innocence.

The topic was whether an innocent person would cooperate in the interview as opposed to giving a no comment interview.

You’re entitled to give police a written statement as a suspect if you want. You can also remain silent or participate in an interview. It is not uncommon for suspects who give a statement but declined to participate in police questioning. I don’t know what tangent you’ve gone on. This isn’t about the trial at all.
Click to expand...
A person might be unable to "co-operate" in a police interview if they don't know the answers to the questions being put to them.

There's a difference between "co-operation", and "answering questions to the satisfaction of police".

This can happen to both innocent and guilty people. Police don't always know all the details of a crime, so they have a theory and ask questions accordingly. But if the theory does not align with what actually happened, the questions they ask may not be relevant or may not make sense to the person being interviewed.

Example: What did you hit her with? Answer, "I didn't hit her". This is an "uncooperative" answer, which could be given truthfully and cooperatively by either a guilty or innocent person.
 
MP_ said:
I live in a town of 3000 people with three kids going to the same school and I wouldn’t know hardly any of the kids or parents. I only know who my kids associate with.
Click to expand...

I agree. I live in a smaller town than Ballarat & wouldn't know every kid & their parents either.

The primary school POS went to currently has over 400 kids. May have been more students 10-12 years ago when he attended.
 
31550 said:
A person might be unable to "co-operate" in a police interview if they don't know the answers to the questions being put to them.

There's a difference between "co-operation", and "answering questions to the satisfaction of police".

This can happen to both innocent and guilty people. Police don't always know all the details of a crime, so they have a theory and ask questions accordingly. But if the theory does not align with what actually happened, the questions they ask may not be relevant or may not make sense to the person being interviewed.

Example: What did you hit her with? Answer, "I didn't hit her". This is an "uncooperative" answer, which could be given truthfully and cooperatively by either a guilty or innocent person.
Click to expand...

To be clear:
1. The issue being discussed is whether an innocent person would give a full police interview, which is what many people assume they would do.
2. To be blunt, if you are suspected of a crime then regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty you should have a lawyer with you for an interview.
3. There is a risk if you fully participate, and particularly without a lawyer present, that you will say something that will fan the fire rather than put it out.
4. If there are gaps in their case you might consider giving a no comment interview. Not always.
5. If there is something meaningful you have to say but you are concerned you might put yourself in it in some other way, an option after hearing the evidence against you is to prepare a written statement. Again, not always but it happens.
6. For example, you have an irrefutable alibi to a murder, but you received some of the deceased persons stolen property, you might give a statement which says what your alibi is in the hope they will turn their attentions elsewhere.
7. Alternatively, in respect of a historical sexual assault allegation, you might want to deny certain things occurred but avoid getting into the minutiae in case you say something that could be seen to be admitting aspects of the case. It might be the difference between being charged or not.
 
Anja_Nees said:
To be clear:
1. The issue being discussed is whether an innocent person would give a full police interview, which is what many people assume they would do.
2. To be blunt, if you are suspected of a crime then regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty you should have a lawyer with you for an interview.
3. There is a risk if you fully participate, and particularly without a lawyer present, that you will say something that will fan the fire rather than put it out.
4. If there are gaps in their case you might consider giving a no comment interview. Not always.
5. If there is something meaningful you have to say but you are concerned you might put yourself in it in some other way, an option after hearing the evidence against you is to prepare a written statement. Again, not always but it happens.
6. For example, you have an irrefutable alibi to a murder, but you received some of the deceased persons stolen property, you might give a statement which says what your alibi is in the hope they will turn their attentions elsewhere.
7. Alternatively, in respect of a historical sexual assault allegation, you might want to deny certain things occurred but avoid getting into the minutiae in case you say something that could be seen to be admitting aspects of the case. It might be the difference between being charged or not.
Click to expand...
In my experience police have no interest in written statements provided by suspects. This is because the suspects statement might include elements which the police do not want on record, for a variety of reasons. Police will typically interview a suspect, then write up a statement for the suspect to sign.
Most suspects would be fools to sign such a statement unless it conveyed everything they wanted to say fully and accurately, and nothing else.
Of course, refusal to sign such a statement would also be viewed by police as non-cooperation, possibly implying guilt.
But such non cooperation is not necessarily due to guilt. It might simply be that the suspect or witness wanted to say something else, or something different.
 
New court addition added overnight:
1710288437457.png

Given it's the same court and directly prior to the Missing Persons Squad one I would assume that "Stephenson, Patrick" is the same as "Stephenson, Patrick Orren".
Maybe he was caught on a speeding camera?

Edit: Only commenting on these two cases. Not trying to link these to any other (Socit) court appearances.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

31550 said:
In my experience police have no interest in written statements provided by suspects. This is because the suspects statement might include elements which the police do not want on record, for a variety of reasons. Police will typically interview a suspect, then write up a statement for the suspect to sign.
Most suspects would be fools to sign such a statement unless it conveyed everything they wanted to say fully and accurately, and nothing else.
Of course, refusal to sign such a statement would also be viewed by police as non-cooperation, possibly implying guilt.
But such non cooperation is not necessarily due to guilt. It might simply be that the suspect or witness wanted to say something else, or something different.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but that is (wildly subjective) opinion which does not match reality. The practice of suspects giving a written statement prepared with a solicitor remains and I do not imagine you know more than the criminal bar or the legal profession at large.

This has been a surreal exchange.
 
MiguelM said:
Yeah, the lack of initial evidence certainly points to no accident. Someone in a panic would surely have left evidence on the day, though he would know the area very well.

You would think if it was a genuine accident his legal team would have advised him to cooperate from the get go IMO
Click to expand...

Wouldn't his legal team let him know, no body no parole
 
Anja_Nees said:
I’m sorry but that is (wildly subjective) opinion which does not match reality. The practice of suspects giving a written statement prepared with a solicitor remains and I do not imagine you know more than the criminal bar or the legal profession at large.

This has been a surreal exchange.
Click to expand...
Let's get back to this particular case then so you can understand.
The suspect was in custody for 30 hours, during which time he would have been repeatedly interviewed by police.
If he was allowed to simply provide a written statement, what were they doing for the remaining 29 hours?
I repeat, the police would have no interest in a written statement provided by the suspect via his solicitor. They wanted a statement addressing their questions. The suspect may or may not have been able to answer such questions, and/or may have been advised not to answer such questions.
The suspect's co-operation or non-co-operation with police cannot objectively be used to determine guilt / innocence. That is the 'wildly subjective' of which you are accusing me.
 
Couch Coach said:
New court addition added overnight:
View attachment 1926468

Given it's the same court and directly prior to the Missing Persons Squad one I would assume that "Stephenson, Patrick" is the same as "Stephenson, Patrick Orren".
Maybe he was caught on a speeding camera?

Edit: Only commenting on these two cases. Not trying to link these to any other (Socit) court appearances.
Click to expand...

Don't bring up the lack of middle name! :eek:

Maybe the two Patrick's will finally get to meet one another at the court house? How quaint.
 
Last edited:
31550 said:
Let's get back to this particular case then so you can understand.
The suspect was in custody for 30 hours, during which time he would have been repeatedly interviewed by police.
If he was allowed to simply provide a written statement, what were they doing for the remaining 29 hours?
I repeat, the police would have no interest in a written statement provided by the suspect via his solicitor. They wanted a statement addressing their questions. The suspect may or may not have been able to answer such questions, and/or may have been advised not to answer such questions.
The suspect's co-operation or non-co-operation with police cannot objectively be used to determine guilt / innocence. That is the 'wildly subjective' of which you are accusing me.
Click to expand...
Look at how many times even in that post you say ‘would’ or ‘may’, and you seem to be totally dismissing the entire practice of giving a written statement in certain circumstances based on your ‘experience’.

You have a poor grasp of all of this. You seem to conflate your belief of what the police will or won’t think with objective fact.

The post you replied to initially (which completely missed the point) related to whether an innocent person would refuse to cooperate. The short point is sometimes they do.

Depending on the circumstances, they might be advised to give a no comment interview, to cooperate or to give a written statement to put their account on the record. Each is justified at times (and actually occurs as a matter of practice).

None of this is actually controversial. For some reason you are shadowboxing with yourself about what the police would think about those practices, which is unverifiable and often not relevant.
 
Athena said:
Interesting. Even if POS' family was considered nouve riche/ not part of the Murphy's social group or people they interacted with, I still find it odd the families didn't at least know each other or regularly interact on some kind of surface level.

I only say this because I know from my son's school that the interaction with all the other parents is pretty full on. Daily drop offs and pickups, sports carnivals, information evenings, pastoral care activities, art exhibitions and other displays, constant birthday parties of classmates...even if you don't particularly like someone, rest assured they'll be in your face. Constantly.

At the very least, wouldn't Samantha's daughter remember POS from her grade? She's only 22 so it wasn't that long ago?

I'm not saying they were attending BBQs together but they surely knew each other even as just school acquaintances?

Only other link between POS and Samantha appears that they were both fit and lived near the running tracks so possibly had seen each other running before.
Click to expand...

Ballarat isn't that small - there are heaps of schools and almost impossible to know everybody in your year level at each one, just isn't realistic. There are also certain schools that mingle with each other more than others and you'd rarely get an outsider attend a party etc. I'm talking high schools here. I went to Loreto and our parties were usually with St Pats with a few from Ballarat High, that was about it. Forget about mingling with the Sebas/East High/Mount Clear schools it just didn't happen. Then you've got Clarendon and Grammar who kept to themselves and Damascus which was a bit of a "bogan" school, those kids were never at our parties.

The primary school Villa is a large school I would say (I went there) and I certainly didn't know every kid's parents. Only the ones I was friends with. My parents also didn't know every other parent.
 
Anja_Nees said:
Look at how many times even in that post you say ‘would’ or ‘may’, and you seem to be totally dismissing the entire practice of giving a written statement in certain circumstances based on your ‘experience’.

You have a poor grasp of all of this. You seem to conflate your belief of what the police will or won’t think with objective fact.

The post you replied to initially (which completely missed the point) related to whether an innocent person would refuse to cooperate. The short point is sometimes they do.

Depending on the circumstances, they might be advised to give a no comment interview, to cooperate or to give a written statement to put their account on the record. Each is justified at times (and actually occurs as a matter of practice).

None of this is actually controversial. For some reason you are shadowboxing with yourself about what the police would think about those practices, which is unverifiable and often not relevant.
Click to expand...
When I say "might", "may" or "would" then that is exactly what I mean, and I am not intending to assert anything.
Just have a look at your most recent 3 or 4 posts and see how many times you yourself used those particular words.
How come when you use them, it's ok, but when I use them I'm being 'wildly subjective'.

Then, have a look at when you or others fail to use such terms and instead ARE being assertive about things which are subjective:

Cooperation with police is subjective as I have demonstrated. Lack of cooperation with police is not an objective indicator of guilt or innocence. These last two points are assertions of mine. You are welcome to disagree or argue otherwise or hold a difference of opinion. Please refrain from trying to score points via nitpicking, diversion and gaslighting. I'm not interested.
 
31550 said:
The exception is when a defendant makes an 'unsworn statement' after all other evidence has been presented. This statement may be read out by the defendant. It is not made under oath, and the defendant cannot be cross-examined. As such, unsworn statements are usually not given much weight by judges or juries, and are not often used these days (I haven't heard of one being made for a while).
Click to expand...
Unsworn statements have been outlawed in every state for decades, the last one I'm aware of was in the Nolfork Island murder, where McNeil made such a statement, as possibly due to a loophole they had forgotten to outlaw them in the external territories.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Samantha Murphy Ballarat * Patrick Orren Stephenson Charged With Murder

Similar threads

Spectrix
Brisbane man charged with double murder following drug overdoses
Replies
2
Views
176
Rob R
R
MrsBlueSky
Current Andre Rebelo - charged with murdering his mother
Replies
0
Views
300
MrsBlueSky
MrsBlueSky
rdhopkins2
Hannah McGuire - Another Senseless Ballarat Murder * Lachie Young charged
2 3
Replies
61
Views
4K
Dogs_R_Us
Dogs_R_Us
Kurve
Current Murder/suicide Rebecca Young - Ballarat
Replies
4
Views
1K
Bostonian
Bostonian
R
ADF Member & Wife Charged with Espionage * Spying for Russia
Replies
24
Views
685
Pamcake1
Pamcake1
BFew
Current Murder of Luke Davies & Jesse Baird AFL Goal Umpire & ex Ch 10 Presenter * Stalker Cop Charged
39 40 41 42 43
Replies
1K
Views
39K
BFew
BFew
CD Xbow
Leongatha Mushroom Deaths - VIC *Erin Patterson charged with 3 counts of murder & 2 attempts
28 29 30 31 32
Replies
793
Views
53K
Run n Spread
R

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top