Samantha Murphy Ballarat * Patrick Orren Stephenson Charged With Murder

[Kurve]

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

The Murder of Rebecca Young - Ballarat

The Murder of Hannah McGuire - Ballarat * Lachie Young

17

Lachie Young

Age

25

Ht

189cm

Wt

81kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.5

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

220.3

3star

D

9.0

2star

K

5.5

2star

HB

3.5

2star

M

1.0

1star

T

2.0

3star

MG

210.0

3star

D

11.2

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

5.0

4star

M

3.8

4star

T

1.8

4star

MG

219.6

4star

charged



Allegedly

 

[ms finch]

There's been lots of speculation about how police have gotten to a murder charge without having any clear evidence relating to the method of murder.

I would suggest that is possible their evidence relates more to motive than means. Their investigation may have established a connection between POS and SM which provides a clear motive for murder. If this is the case, all they would need is to prove opportunity - that he was at the alleged murder scene at the same time. They can then allege murder without knowing the actual method, or location of the body.

This is a very valid point - the discussion has been almost entirely around the physical evidence without any reference to the reasons why this may have happened.

However it's hard to imagine what the connection could be between the two based on what we know of them. Plus from my memory of the timeline police did not hone in on anyone until they had a data dump from various mobile phone towers. I could be wrong about this, and of course information as to who they suspected prior to that may not ever have been in the public domain. But I certainly got the impression they were pretty clueless about what happened until that point.

Nonetheless, a motive doesn't have to be something historical or longstanding. A motive can be developed quite quickly, such as if there was an altercation between the two people (ala Adrian Bayley). It could be as simple as CCTV footage of SM running across a road in front of POS, he has to brake hard and is angered by that. (Not suggesting this is the case, just an example of what can happen.)

 

[mrskafoops]

He could have admitted he did it. He’d still get a trial.

 

[shorsky]

In answer to your question, yes, I have knowledge of criminal law.

There is nothing concrete to work with here simply on the basis that he has been charged. What police have should at least rise to a level of reasonable with a view to a prima facie case, but that is an exceptionally broad term and police have a lot of discretion in these matters.

Sometimes when people are charged there is masses of evidence and innocent until proven guilty can seem a formality. But that's not to be confused with the idea that all charges render innocent until proven guilty largely a formality. Innocent people are charged quite frequently. There is simply no way of knowing from a charge alone if someone is likely to be guilty or not, and certainly not in a situation like this one with such minimal evidence in the public domain.

Yes, his reason for not revealing the body location may be because he has been erroneously charged and has no idea where it is.

But equally, if he did in fact kill SM, it is actually not to his benefit to reveal the location of the body. To do so would be to admit guilt and seal his fate. It is very difficult to secure a murder conviction without a body. A number of wrongful convictions and questionable convictions are those without a body. In the absence of a body, manslaughter is often almost the only possible outcome. Francis Wark springs to mind - the jury couldn't find him guilty of the murder of Hayley Dodd, largely due to the absence of evidence to demonstrate what happened, but accepted manslaughter. Two that spring to mind that I would consider safe murder convictions without a body are Bradley Murdoch (Peter Falconio) and Chris Dawson (Teacher's Pet), but there was significant other evidence in both of these cases to account for the lack of a body.

To give another example, look at the CSK and Sarah Spiers. Although I think everyone thinks BRE killed Sarah, the reality of the legal process provides greater insight than just this. Police charged BRE with nothing except circumstantial pattern. There was no body, no forensic evidence, no eyewitness, no data connecting them being together, no confession, no informer. Nothing substantive at all. Nonetheless it was a valid charge. That shows just how little police really need to charge someone. Subsequently, despite the Judge acknowledging the likelihood that BRE was her killer, he could not find BRE guilty, precisely because there was simply no evidence. A charge with very limited evidence can be entirely valid and even likely correct, but it doesn't mean they'll secure a conviction.

Unless police find a body here or have some other substantive evidence to support his involvement in her death, there is no reason for POS to directly or effectively confess. Strategically he is preserving his best chance of getting an acquittal. If they do find a body or have or gather substantive evidence, this may change. It may then prove to be to his benefit to reveal the body and plead guilty for a reduced sentence. On the issue of co-operation, there is very limited, if any, difference in sentence mitigation between doing this at the beginning of an investigation and just before the first hearing entering an official plea. So, honestly he may as well not at this stage and preserve his options.

There is no way to infer his innocence or guilt at this point, none whatsoever. He is valid to be doing what he's doing (not talking) at the moment either way. All we can say is that police believe there is some sort of prima facie case against him, which may prove to be accurate or it may not.

EDIT: Typos

Cheers. I sincerely very much appreciate your detailed explanation of what fueled your previous post. It’s pretty much aligned to my thoughts after all so I’m no longer questioning myself.

Thanks also for ‘trying to use terms that are easily understood here’ …

 

[ms finch]

Cheers. I sincerely very much appreciate your detailed explanation of what fueled your previous post. It’s pretty much aligned to my thoughts after all so I’m no longer questioning myself.

Thanks also for ‘trying to use terms that are easily understood here’ …

All I meant by that was that I wasn't sure if the legal terminology used in these situations would be helpful to understand my point, so I was trying to explain roughly what the legal terms actually mean.

 

[ms finch]

He could have admitted he did it. He’d still get a trial.

If he confessed to killing her to the police there is no reason for him not to reveal the body. That's one instance in which concealment of the body doesn't assist him and in fact works against him. In the other current matter of Beau Lamarre-Condon, he essentially owned up to police and initially refused to provide information, but not long after he'd had legal advice he then revealed information including the location of the body. It could depend on the nature of the confession and perhaps whether any mental health assessment was being done, but I would still find it decidedly odd on his behalf and especially with legal advice (which he's now had an opportunity to get). Even in a scenario where he said he accidentally killed her and abandoned the body and someone else must have moved her, I think it's a stretch at this point. In the absence of a body, people either confess the lot or confess nothing. I don't think we have a confession.

If he made an admission to someone else, he could claim any number of things about said admission and it may still be to his benefit in this situation to not say or reveal anything. So yes, possible, and we wouldn't know at this point because it would form part of the brief of evidence his lawyer would likely assess before advising him what to do (which he is free to ignore). We won't necessarily know about anything like that until the first hearing.

He's entitled to a trial under any circumstances, but it would be very unusual for there to be a trial if someone made a full, frank and voluntary confession to police.

 

[Zidane98]

This is a very valid point - the discussion has been almost entirely around the physical evidence without any reference to the reasons why this may have happened.

However it's hard to imagine what the connection could be between the two based on what we know of them. Plus from my memory of the timeline police did not hone in on anyone until they had a data dump from various mobile phone towers. I could be wrong about this, and of course information as to who they suspected prior to that may not ever have been in the public domain. But I certainly got the impression they were pretty clueless about what happened until that point.

Nonetheless, a motive doesn't have to be something historical or longstanding. A motive can be developed quite quickly, such as if there was an altercation between the two people (ala Adrian Bayley). It could be as simple as CCTV footage of SM running across a road in front of POS, he has to brake hard and is angered by that. (Not suggesting this is the case, just an example of what can happen.)

Thankyou for this analysis, it makes a lot of sense. Pretty much if the coppers can establish a motive, prove that he was in the same place at the same time as the disappearance of the victim than that's enough to bring murder charges.

Sifting through all the mobile phone data eliminating others from the investigation would have been quite time consuming. This was on the edge of suburbia so there would have been quite a significant number of mobile phone connections active at the time of the disappearance that needed assessment / elimination from the investigation. I can imagine coppers would then need to cross check this data with CCTV for entry/exit of the area on the day.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Is it possible that during the time that elapsed between the commission of the crime after which he immediately concealed Samantha’s body somewhere that wasn’t searched at first, and when he was arrested, that he went back, retrieved the body and took it far away? Perhaps the police found those movements - tracked by phone pings and cameras - highly suggestive that he was the one that was responsible, hence the “deliberate murder” charge.

 

[Zidane98]

Is it possible that during the time that elapsed between the commission of the crime after which he immediately concealed Samantha’s body somewhere that wasn’t searched at first, and when he was arrested, that he went back, retrieved the body and took it far away? Perhaps the police found those movements - tracked by phone pings and cameras - highly suggestive that he was the one that was responsible, hence the “deliberate murder” charge.

He wasn't arrested for weeks afterwards. We don't know when the police honed in on him as a suspect so he may have had plenty of time to hide the body somewhere else a long way from the general area.

 

[31550]

Is it possible that during the time that elapsed between the commission of the crime after which he immediately concealed Samantha’s body somewhere that wasn’t searched at first, and when he was arrested, that he went back, retrieved the body and took it far away? Perhaps the police found those movements - tracked by phone pings and cameras - highly suggestive that he was the one that was responsible, hence the “deliberate murder” charge.

If he was guilty of the allegations and dumb enough to do that, he would have been dumb enough to leave a trail to the body.
The only way to get away with what's been alleged is to dispose of the body efficiently and immediately. Returning to the scene and/or delays in completing the crime increases chance of detection drastically.

 

[ms finch]

Thankyou for this analysis, it makes a lot of sense. Pretty much if the coppers can establish a motive, prove that he was in the same place at the same time as the disappearance of the victim than that's enough to bring murder charges.

Sifting through all the mobile phone data eliminating others from the investigation would have been quite time consuming. This was on the edge of suburbia so there would have been quite a significant number of mobile phone connections active at the time of the disappearance that needed assessment / elimination from the investigation. I can imagine coppers would then need to cross check this data with CCTV for entry/exit of the area on the day.

They don’t need a motive to charge with murder. It may be helpful, and it may be something they have here, but they don’t require it. They can have charged him with murder based entirely on the circumstantial data collection and analysis.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

If he was guilty of the allegations and dumb enough to do that, he would have been dumb enough to leave a trail to the body.
The only way to get away with what's been alleged is to dispose of the body efficiently and immediately. Returning to the scene and/or delays in completing the crime increases chance of detection drastically.

He may well have been dumb enough but dumbness could only be judged as such in hindsight. Suddenly killing someone (and I’m assuming unintentionally) doesn’t exactly lead to clear thinking. If he was desperate and panicking he may have thought the police were closing in - remember them doing another search in a different area a bit later? If she had been there, and PS had removed her before they got there, they now have a lot of painstaking work to do to to trace his subsequent movements.

 

[31550]

They don’t need a motive to charge with murder. It may be helpful, and it may be something they have here, but they don’t require it. They can have charged him with murder based entirely on the circumstantial data collection and analysis.

Without a motive, and without a body, and without a confession it is hard to see the prima facie case for murder. Is there any precedent for a murder charge in such circumstances?

This case has been compared to Lynette Dawson and Jill Meagher, but in the case of Dawson the motive was clear, and in the case of Meagher, the killer Bailey confessed and led police to the body.

 

[Zidane98]

They don’t need a motive to charge with murder. It may be helpful, and it may be something they have here, but they don’t require it. They can have charged him with murder based entirely on the circumstantial data collection and analysis.

What is required to bring murder charges and then jail a suspect indefinitely until their trial is heard?

If it's just circumstantial / location based evidence well anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time could feasibly have murder charges brought against them.

 

[ms finch]

Without a motive, and without a body, and without a confession it is hard to see the prima facie case for murder. Is there any precedent for a murder charge in such circumstances?

This case has been compared to Lynette Dawson and Jill Meagher, but in the case of Dawson the motive was clear, and in the case of Meagher, the killer Bailey confessed and led police to the body.

If that is all they have and they don't acquire anything else then I don't see the case progressing, let alone a conviction. But it's enough for a charge, because the threshold is substantially lower.

Yes people have been charged with murder with such a seemingly low amount of evidence. Sometimes these charges are dropped and therefore we don't hear much or really recall them. Sometimes they progress but don't make it past the committal. Sometimes they progress and don't result in a conviction.

Rather than look up a case, I'll give you an example of one that everyone will know: the CSK and Sarah Spiers. That was a charge based entirely on circumstantial pattern. No body, no forensic information, no direct witnesses, no confession, no admission of anything to anyone. No clear motive, either. The prosecution put forward a theory, but this is still a hotly debated part of the crimes, and at the time of charging him with Sarah's murder they had not settled on any theory.

The way I see this one:

It is reasonable to conclude SM is dead. She was apparently happy and stable in her life; she had strong connections to her family, friends and community; she had no apparent mental health or financial issues; she went for a routine run; she had plans later in the day and ongoing. She had no reason to go missing. I presume there is no evidence of her accessing bank accounts etc.

There is a prima facie case that she likely met with foul play. The aforementioned reasons tend to limit the likelihood of suicide. In the case of an accident she would likely have been found on or near her running route, and perhaps also there would be indications from the data of hers they were able to acquire (eg, no notification from her smartwatch).

We are talking about an isolated area, which limits the likelihood of anyone else's data coinciding with hers, especially if her movements as logged by her electronic devices were particularly unusual. This may in fact narrow it down to one person.

Does that mean said person is guilty? Of course not. There are any number of reasons for such a coincidence, which is why I say that if this is all they have or ever have I don't see a particularly high chance of conviction. But it's enough for a charge.

They don't need a motive, but that's not to say they don't have one or have a working theory. They may also have some sort of history of the accused that suggests his candidacy for something like this. But they may not have any of that.

FWIW, I believe they would have charged Bayley without a body or confession, and still progressed the case.

 

[ms finch]

What is required to bring murder charges and then jail a suspect indefinitely until their trial is heard?

If it's just circumstantial / location based evidence well anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time could feasibly have murder charges brought against them.

Yes, people in the wrong place at the wrong time have had murder charges brought against them. People in the wrong place at the wrong time have even been wrongfully convicted of murder.

Whether or not an accused remains in remand until their trial is dependent on a member of the judiciary determining bail. The more circumstantial a case, the more likely a person is to get bail, but this is balanced with the severity of the charge, the likelihood that a person is a risk to the community, and other factors. People don't usually get bail with murder charges, but it's also early in the piece and we don't know if his lawyer will prepare another application for bail once they have had a chance to consider the current evidence.

 

[31550]

If that is all they have and they don't acquire anything else then I don't see the case progressing, let alone a conviction. But it's enough for a charge, because the threshold is substantially lower.

Yes people have been charged with murder with such a seemingly low amount of evidence. Sometimes these charges are dropped and therefore we don't hear much or really recall them. Sometimes they progress but don't make it past the committal. Sometimes they progress and don't result in a conviction.

Rather than look up a case, I'll give you an example of one that everyone will know: the CSK and Sarah Spiers. That was a charge based entirely on circumstantial pattern. No body, no forensic information, no direct witnesses, no confession, no admission of anything to anyone. No clear motive, either. The prosecution put forward a theory, but this is still a hotly debated part of the crimes, and at the time of charging him with Sarah's murder they had not settled on any theory.

The way I see this one:

It is reasonable to conclude SM is dead. She was apparently happy and stable in her life; she had strong connections to her family, friends and community; she had no apparent mental health or financial issues; she went for a routine run; she had plans later in the day and ongoing. She had no reason to go missing. I presume there is no evidence of her accessing bank accounts etc.

There is a prima facie case that she likely met with foul play. The aforementioned reasons tend to limit the likelihood of suicide. In the case of an accident she would likely have been found on or near her running route, and perhaps also there would be indications from the data of hers they were able to acquire (eg, no notification from her smartwatch).

We are talking about an isolated area, which limits the likelihood of anyone else's data coinciding with hers, especially if her movements as logged by her electronic devices were particularly unusual. This may in fact narrow it down to one person.

Does that mean said person is guilty? Of course not. There are any number of reasons for such a coincidence, which is why I say that if this is all they have or ever have I don't see a particularly high chance of conviction. But it's enough for a charge.

They don't need a motive, but that's not to say they don't have one or have a working theory. They may also have some sort of history of the accused that suggests his candidacy for something like this. But they may not have any of that.

FWIW, I believe they would have charged Bayley without a body or confession, and still progressed the case.

Thanks for your thoughtful discussion on this. In the case of Sarah Spiers, there is most definitely a (theoretical) motive - the CSK was a deranged serial killer and Edwards was proven to have killed others in the same demographic, same location and the same time. So, the alleged motive fitted the circumstances. In fact, the only reason for even charging Edwards with Spiers murder was the evidence of the other crimes - "if he killed one, then he killed them all". And of course Edwards was ultimately acquitted of the Spiers murder.

We don't know about any history of crimes linked to POS - (there may be a history we don't know about), but his lawyer said he had never been in custody before, there are no similar unsolved crimes in the area which can be proven to be linked to POS, he has a family, a job and a girlfriend, so doesn't 'fit the mold' of a known, deranged serial offender enough to pin such a motive on POS.

I like to keep things simple (Occams Razor). Most murderers are known to their victims. I think it's more likely that SM and POS were somehow known to each other, and that connection provided a motive for murder. Of course we don't know what that is at this time, and the police are not obliged to release this information (neither should they be).

Again, I cannot think of any murder charge in this country where there has been no motive, no body, and no confession, and no direct physical evidence (blood, DNA, murder weapon) linking the accused to the murder. It's all circumstantial. Without a motive, you cannot prove intent or deliberation, and without intent it's not murder.

 

[ms finch]

Thanks for your thoughtful discussion on this. In the case of Sarah Spiers, there is most definitely a (theoretical) motive - the CSK was a deranged serial killer and Edwards was proven to have killed others in the same demographic, same location and the same time. So, the alleged motive fitted the circumstances. In fact, the only reason for even charging Edwards with Spiers murder was the evidence of the other crimes - "if he killed one, then he killed them all". And of course Edwards was ultimately acquitted of the Spiers murder.

We don't know about any history of crimes linked to POS - (there may be a history we don't know about), but his lawyer said he had never been in custody before, there are no similar unsolved crimes in the area which can be proven to be linked to POS, he has a family, a job and a girlfriend, so doesn't 'fit the mold' of a known, deranged serial offender enough to pin such a motive on POS.

I like to keep things simple (Occams Razor). Most murderers are known to their victims. I think it's more likely that SM and POS were somehow known to each other, and that connection provided a motive for murder. Of course we don't know what that is at this time, and the police are not obliged to release this information (neither should they be).

Again, I cannot think of any murder charge in this country where there has been no motive, no body, and no confession, and no direct physical evidence (blood, DNA, murder weapon) linking the accused to the murder. It's all circumstantial. Without a motive, you cannot prove intent or deliberation, and without intent it's not murder.

Likewise it's nice to discuss this with you.

Rather than debate the BRE situation, have a look at Susan Neill-Fraser in Tasmania. No body, no confession, no physical evidence, and even significant evidence that she wouldn't have been capable of what police proposed. While they did come up with a motive, it was about as whacky and ridiculous as imaginable so as to be clearly something they just made up, and ultimately not really a motive at all. That case is widely regarded by legal experts as a thoroughly unsafe conviction. I can present more. Police often backfill a motive after charging because they realise that it is going to become a problem in a trial. Sometimes this backfill is based on evidence, sometimes they pull it out of their rears.

I do agree, though, that beyond what we have been told about, if they have anything more it could well be a working theory on motive. I should clarify that I don't call a theory on motive, absent evidence, a real motive. You can make up reasons why someone will do anything, and you don't really need a concrete and specific targeted reason for a murder conviction; a general "violent thug who was quick to anger" will do. When I say motive I mean a direct and clear reason why someone has done something specifically to that person. I should probably ensure I clarify that distinction when I post about it.

One of the other things I think is more likely than additional direct evidence is a history of certain behaviours of the accused. His lawyer said he had never been in custody before, but that doesn't mean there weren't reports of things or concerning behaviours identified at some point. The specific use of "custody" rather than "never been identified for anything concerning" or "never been in trouble" interested me. Going back to Bayley, it was his violent history that police factored in to their belief he was responsible, alongside the data, before they had anything conclusive. Obviously there is nothing to Bayley's level here, but there may be smaller things that never quite reached the threshold for arrests or charges.

ETA: POS has really unfortunate initials.

 

[31550]

Likewise it's nice to discuss this with you.

Rather than debate the BRE situation, have a look at Susan Neill-Fraser in Tasmania. No body, no confession, no physical evidence, and even significant evidence that she wouldn't have been capable of what police proposed. While they did come up with a motive, it was about as whacky and ridiculous as imaginable so as to be clearly something they just made up, and ultimately not really a motive at all. That case is widely regarded by legal experts as a thoroughly unsafe conviction. I can present more. Police often backfill a motive after charging because they realise that it is going to become a problem in a trial. Sometimes this backfill is based on evidence, sometimes they pull it out of their rears.

I do agree, though, that beyond what we have been told about, if they have anything more it could well be a working theory on motive. I should clarify that I don't call a theory on motive, absent evidence, a real motive. You can make up reasons why someone will do anything, and you don't really need a concrete and specific targeted reason for a murder conviction; a general "violent thug who was quick to anger" will do. When I say motive I mean a direct and clear reason why someone has done something specifically to that person. I should probably ensure I clarify that distinction when I post about it.

One of the other things I think is more likely than additional direct evidence is a history of certain behaviours of the accused. His lawyer said he had never been in custody before, but that doesn't mean there weren't reports of things or concerning behaviours identified at some point. The specific use of "custody" rather than "never been identified for anything concerning" or "never been in trouble" interested me. Going back to Bayley, it was his violent history that police factored in to their belief he was responsible, alongside the data, before they had anything conclusive. Obviously there is nothing to Bayley's level here, but there may be smaller things that never quite reached the threshold for arrests or charges.

ETA: POS has really unfortunate initials.

Thanks. Not meaning to be argumentative just for the sake of it, but again, in the case of Susan Neill-Fraser, there is an implied motive and certainly the victim was known to the killer - it was her husband! So, the inferred motive is a crime of passion, presumably. My contention remains that the Samantha Murphy case / POS murder charge is 'unprecedented' (can't think of a better word), because there is no apparent connection between the alleged killer and victim, and therefore nor obvious or inferred motive. As well as no body, no direct physical evidence, ...


PS: To take this theory one step further, could the circumstantial evidence (phone pings / GPS data) be enough to prove a connection between the two parties, enough to suggest a motive? Well, yes, if the data proved that SM and POS were in the same place at the same time on multiple occasions leading up to her alleged murder. For instance, can POS be shown to have witnessed more of Samantha's runs in the forest, and therefore be shown to be stalking her? Or, can they both be placed in another location where they might have had some sort of disagreement or altercation?

 

[ms finch]

Thanks. Not meaning to be argumentative just for the sake of it, but again, in the case of Susan Neill-Fraser, there is an implied motive and certainly the victim was known to the killer - it was her husband! So, the inferred motive is a crime of passion, presumably. My contention remains that the Samantha Murphy case / POS murder charge is 'unprecedented' (can't think of a better word), because there is no apparent connection between the alleged killer and victim, and therefore nor obvious or inferred motive. As well as no body, no direct physical evidence, ...


PS: To take this theory one step further, could the circumstantial evidence (phone pings / GPS data) be enough to prove a connection between the two parties, enough to suggest a motive? Well, yes, if the data proved that SM and POS were in the same place at the same time on multiple occasions leading up to her alleged murder. For instance, can POS be shown to have witnessed more of Samantha's runs in the forest, and therefore be shown to be stalking her? Or, can they both be placed in another location where they might have had some sort of disagreement or altercation?

I think we might be talking slightly crossed purposes here. You can make up a motive in any circumstances, to account for the strangest of situations. It’s fanciful to suggest that merely being in a relationship with someone is actual evidence of a motive of crime of passion or financial gain. To really have motive, you’d have to demonstrate why specifically in that relationship it was applicable.

Coming up with a motive doesn’t make them reasonable or real motives. The question it seemed to me you were asking was whether there was a genuine and credible belief in a motive here, supported by evidence. There are plenty of cases where a person has been charged with murder without any genuine or supported motive. There are in fact cases where a person has been charged with murder without any motive whatsoever, but I’m reluctant to offer names of people whose charges have since been dropped or whose wrongful convictions have been overturned.

It’s absolutely not unprecedented for police to bring charges under what appear to be such tenuous circumstances.

But also, why would motive need to be part of a charge when it is not a necessary component of a conviction? It certainly helps a murder case to come up with a motive, but motive, as we are discussing here, is not an element of the crime. Intent and recklessness are elements of murder, not motive. Intent can be formed in the space of moments without any concept of motive.

 

[31550]

I think we might be talking slightly crossed purposes here. You can make up a motive in any circumstances, to account for the strangest of situations. It’s fanciful to suggest that merely being in a relationship with someone is actual evidence of a motive of crime of passion or financial gain. To really have motive, you’d have to demonstrate why specifically in that relationship it was applicable.

Coming up with a motive doesn’t make them reasonable or real motives. The question it seemed to me you were asking was whether there was a genuine and credible belief in a motive here, supported by evidence. There are plenty of cases where a person has been charged with murder without any genuine or supported motive. There are in fact cases where a person has been charged with murder without any motive whatsoever, but I’m reluctant to offer names of people whose charges have since been dropped or whose wrongful convictions have been overturned.

It’s absolutely not unprecedented for police to bring charges under what appear to be such tenuous circumstances.

But also, why would motive need to be part of a charge when it is not a necessary component of a conviction? It certainly helps a murder case to come up with a motive, but motive, as we are discussing here, is not an element of the crime. Intent and recklessness are elements of murder, not motive. Intent can be formed in the space of moments without any concept of motive.

Because it's too easy to defend when there is no connection between the two parties.

"We allege you deliberately killed her"

"No. I didn't even know her. Why would I kill her? There are plenty of other people who knew her well and may have had reason to kill her. You can't prove that none of them did it." Reasonable doubt?

But with a husband and wife, one can always allege one partner stood to inherit wealth or assets, or there was an extramarital affair, or they disagreed over some other domestic issue ...

 

[ms finch]

Because it's too easy to defend when there is no connection between the two parties.

"We allege you deliberately killed her"

"No. I didn't even know her. Why would I kill her? There are plenty of other people who knew her well and may have had reason to kill her. You can't prove that none of them did it." Reasonable doubt?

But with a husband and wife, one can always allege one partner stood to inherit wealth or assets, or there was an extramarital affair, or they disagreed over some other domestic issue ...

This very type of assumption - that in an intimate relationship there can always be a motive - is one of the most common reasons for wrongful conviction when one partner is killed and the other is accused. Which is why I say that simply plucking this as a motive based on the existence of a relationship is not a genuine or concrete motive. It is in fact pretty lazy or prejudicially motivated police work.

Plenty of murders are committed by people who have no pre-existing relationship with the victim. Serial killers often kill people they have no connection with. Adrian Bayley had no connection with Jill Meagher beyond the altercation that led to him killing her. In terms of charges, Greg Lynne is currently accused of murdering Russell Hill and Carol Clay and apparently had no connection with them outside meeting them when they were camping. Nobody has a clue what happened at that campsite beyond him and the couple, and yet police charged him with murder. I'd posit that a number of the unsolved cases are because the person was killed by someone they didn't know beyond the incident that led to their death.

In this particular case, there is no reason for there to be anything beyond the actual killing incident for it to be classified as murder. (I am talking in theory of course; there is no way of knowing whether POS had anything to do with SM's death at this stage.) This could be as straightforward as POS ran into SM, they had an argument, and she ended up dead. (Again, of course, in theory; he may have had nothing to do with it.) And at this stage it could be entirely based on the data positioning that shows the two phones remained together and through an unusual area that has no other clear explanation with no other people around.

To come at this from another direction, police largely face the same issue at this stage whether they charge murder or manslaughter. That is, that absent evidence of what actually happened at the time SM died and without a body, they have no concrete idea of what happened. A theoretical motive or even a pre-existing connection is not enough to make the distinction on its own because the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the matter and what happens in the moment are both very relevant to whether something fits murder or manslaughter. In such a situation, police will usually charge murder rather than manslaughter because it is much easier to downgrade charges than it is to upgrade charges if you fail to find more evidence.

To give an example, let's say Neighbours A & B are involved in a longstanding fight over their fence. Neighbour A kills Neighbour B with their car. Neighbour A possibly has a motive for murder due to the longstanding dispute, but whether or not they formed the requisite intent or acted with the requisite recklessness when they killed Neighbour B is more complex than simply knowing they had a motive. In such a situation, a person could be charged with or convicted of either murder or manslaughter, depending on the facts of the case.

Or for another example, if a person walks out in to the street and shoots indiscriminately and kills someone, they may well be charged with murder. No motive as to the death of that person, no pre-existing relationship with the person they killed.

 

[Lady O]

If he confessed to killing her to the police there is no reason for him not to reveal the body. That's one instance in which concealment of the body doesn't assist him and in fact works against him. In the other current matter of Beau Lamarre-Condon, he essentially owned up to police and initially refused to provide information, but not long after he'd had legal advice he then revealed information including the location of the body. It could depend on the nature of the confession and perhaps whether any mental health assessment was being done, but I would still find it decidedly odd on his behalf and especially with legal advice (which he's now had an opportunity to get). Even in a scenario where he said he accidentally killed her and abandoned the body and someone else must have moved her, I think it's a stretch at this point. In the absence of a body, people either confess the lot or confess nothing. I don't think we have a confession.

If he made an admission to someone else, he could claim any number of things about said admission and it may still be to his benefit in this situation to not say or reveal anything. So yes, possible, and we wouldn't know at this point because it would form part of the brief of evidence his lawyer would likely assess before advising him what to do (which he is free to ignore). We won't necessarily know about anything like that until the first hearing.

He's entitled to a trial under any circumstances, but it would be very unusual for there to be a trial if someone made a full, frank and voluntary confession to police.

If he stated he had no memory of that day (due to intoxication/drugs), then he isn't going to be able to tell them where he hid her body.

 

[ms finch]

If he stated he had no memory of that day (due to intoxication/drugs), then he isn't going to be able to tell them where he hid her body.

If his statement to police was that he had no memory of the day, that would not be a confession about what happened, either. It would also not be particularly helpful to him, because he'd be leaving open the possibility that he killed her and didn't remember.

Of course we have no idea if he said anything like this.

 

[Lady O]

If his statement to police was that he had no memory of the day, that would not be a confession about what happened, either. It would also not be particularly helpful to him, because he'd be leaving open the possibility that he killed her and didn't remember.

Of course we have no idea if he said anything like this.

Where did you get the idea that he confessed? I'm thinking the "I don't remember" leaves a lot of options for someone accused of murder.

 

[thumbs_up]

Where did you get the idea that he confessed? I'm thinking the "I don't remember" leaves a lot of options for someone accused of murder.

If phone data places the alleged perp at the same place as the victim at the time she was murdered, then "I don't remember" isn't going to help the accused here