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

 

[Black Diamond]

Stating you don't remember is far riskier than declining to speak at all.

For example:

Police: What did the deceased say when you spoke to her moments before the deceased died?
You: I don't remember.
Police: Another witness said the deceased claimed you had threatened her right before she died.
You: No, that is not what I said.
Police: ...

 

[ms finch]

Stating you don't remember is far riskier than declining to speak at all.

For example:

Police: What did the deceased say when you spoke to her moments before the deceased died?
You: I don't remember.
Police: Another witness said the deceased claimed you had threatened her right before she died.
You: No, that is not what I said.
Police: ...

Exactly. There's also a big difference between saying you don't remember something because you truly don't remember it and just using "I don't remember" as a blanket catch all to avoid giving information.

Police: "Did you kill SM"?
You: "I don't remember."
Is not the get out of jail free card people think it is.

 

[Catch]

Well, sometimes you can remember things after being prompted by new information. If such information is forthcoming.

I bet he remembers where he keeps his phone

 

[Lady O]

Exactly. There's also a big difference between saying you don't remember something because you truly don't remember it and just using "I don't remember" as a blanket catch all to avoid giving information.

Police: "Did you kill SM"?
You: "I don't remember."
Is not the get out of jail free card people think it is.

I doubt it would be a "blanket" I don't remember. Let's just say his memory could be "patchy".

 

[ms finch]

I doubt it would be a "blanket" I don't remember. Let's just say his memory could be "patchy".

You seem to think that saying, "I don't remember" is a way of dismissing or deflecting questions. It isn't. It's an acknowledgement of something, namely, that what police are putting to you may have happened and you are mentally unable to confirm it or deny it.

The last thing you want to do if you're asked about circumstances around committing murder is provide any sort of acknowledgement that it's possible you did it, let alone one that implies any sort of likelihood on the basis that you did it but blocked it out.

You will also then be faced with questions about why you don't remember. Were you impaired by drugs or alcohol? Do you often have memory blackouts? Were you facing stress in your life that may explain you not remembering things? All of which is giving police information that may aide them in convicting you.

You will be asked to clarify why you remember "x" but don't remember "y". You will be asked at what point your memory stops and at what point your memory starts. At best you're going to come off looking like a dodgy and unreliable dipstick. More likely you will find a picture painted of you as a liar who was trying to cover up what you did.

While people cannot infer anything from silence, they are absolutely allowed to and will infer things from and interpret, "I don't remember".

 

[craffles]

No comment

 

[Kurve]

No comment

Why not? Are you ill?

 

[jason_recliner]

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.

Yep, he does seem pretty dumb.

 

[jason_recliner]

While people cannot infer anything from silence, they are absolutely allowed to and will infer things from and interpret, "I don't remember".

People can and do infer plenty from silence / "no comment", especially in the face of reasonable investigative line of questioning and / or presentation of credible evidence.

 

[ms finch]

Peeople can and do infer plenty from silence / "no comment", especially in the face of reasonable investigative line of questioning and / or presentation of credible evidence.

Sure, but they are not supposed to, police cannot introduce evidence about someone’s silence meaning something, and any jury will be instructed by a judge not to. The same official position and instructions do not exist with statements such as, “I don’t remember”, which not only provide insight and information directly but can absolutely be used against someone.

I don’t really understand the point of taking comments out of context.

 

[31550]

Yep, he does seem pretty dumb.

How can you make that assessment? Have you met him or seen him interviewed?

 

[Black Diamond]

Peeople can and do infer plenty from silence / "no comment", especially in the face of reasonable investigative line of questioning and / or presentation of credible evidence.

It isn’t like that.

If you say nothing at all then you can say what you want later if it suits you.

It is very hard to come back from “I cannot remember.” There is a saying about being wary of the witness whose memory improves over time. It makes a person look unreliable at best and dishonest at worst.

Same goes for selectively refusing to comment.

If you can recall what happened either side of an event but not the event itself, it looks dodgy AF.

 

[Lady O]

You seem to think that saying, "I don't remember" is a way of dismissing or deflecting questions. It isn't. It's an acknowledgement of something, namely, that what police are putting to you may have happened and you are mentally unable to confirm it or deny it.

The last thing you want to do if you're asked about circumstances around committing murder is provide any sort of acknowledgement that it's possible you did it, let alone one that implies any sort of likelihood on the basis that you did it but blocked it out.

You will also then be faced with questions about why you don't remember. Were you impaired by drugs or alcohol? Do you often have memory blackouts? Were you facing stress in your life that may explain you not remembering things? All of which is giving police information that may aide them in convicting you.

You will be asked to clarify why you remember "x" but don't remember "y". You will be asked at what point your memory stops and at what point your memory starts. At best you're going to come off looking like a dodgy and unreliable dipstick. More likely you will find a picture painted of you as a liar who was trying to cover up what you did.

While people cannot infer anything from silence, they are absolutely allowed to and will infer things from and interpret, "I don't remember".

Yeah whatever!

 

[Catch]

Yep, he does seem pretty dumb.

I still think more to it, possibly someone else of interest

 

[yodellinhank]

It isn’t like that.

If you say nothing at all then you can say what you want later if it suits you.

It is very hard to come back from “I cannot remember.” There is a saying about being wary of the witness whose memory improves over time. It makes a person look unreliable at best and dishonest at worst.

Same goes for selectively refusing to comment.

If you can recall what happened either side of an event but not the event itself, it looks dodgy AF.

It worked for Aurora Andruska

 

[jason_recliner]

Sure, but they are not supposed to, police cannot introduce evidence about someone’s silence meaning something, and any jury will be instructed by a judge not to. The same official position and instructions do not exist with statements such as, “I don’t remember”, which not only provide insight and information directly but can absolutely be used against someone.

I don’t really understand the point of taking comments out of context.

It's human nature, regardless of whether one is supposed to or not. If somebody is innocent, and is asked reasonable questions, and presented factual evidence clearly and unabiguously, to answer "no comment", well, it at least looks unusual, if not necessarily guilty. Whereas if somebody is actually guilty, it makes more sense that they would say "no comment" or just stonewall. Would come into play in a jury hearing IMO.

 

[jason_recliner]

How can you make that assessment? Have you met him or seen him interviewed?

Considered what I know about him and made an assessment. No.

 

[jason_recliner]

There is a saying about being wary of the witness whose memory improves over time.

It's a bit of an over-generalisation IMO. Often I couldn't tell you what I was doing a month ago, but if somebody reminds me of a big meeting I had that day, or an important milestone, for example, could even be a lunch or dinner, then a bunch of 'less important' events around that may pop into my mind and become clearer.

If you say nothing at all then you can say what you want later if it suits you.

Can't speak for everybody, but if somebody stonewalled and potentially hindered an investigation, and then answered to suit themselves at a later date, I might not look favourably upon that if I was a juror. At the least, I would wonder why the change of heart.

 

[craffles]

Why not? Are you ill?

No comment

 

[31550]

Saying "no comment" is not the same as saying nothing. Better off saying nothing.

 

[Zidane98]

Saying "no comment" is not the same as saying nothing. Better off saying nothing.

Is it always? Say for instance POS has it put to him what were you doing in the Canadian state forest area at the same time as SM disappeared.


If he were to say I was going on my normal Sunday morning walk, recreates the route with police. Says he went for a walk and returned home. Did not see or talk to anyone.


Does it then become incumbent on the police to prove that this statement is not true to pursure murder charges?


If one has an explanation for what they were doing in the area at the time and denies any involvement with SM disappearance surely they are entitled to this being story being considered true & accurate unless proven otherwise with other evidence?

 

[thumbs_up]

Is it always? Say for instance POS has it put to him what were you doing in the Canadian state forest area at the same time as SM disappeared.


If he were to say I was going on my normal Sunday morning walk, recreates the route with police. Says he went for a walk and returned home. Did not see or talk to anyone.


Does it then become incumbent on the police to prove that this statement is not true to pursure murder charges?


If one has an explanation for what they were doing in the area at the time and denies any involvement with SM disappearance surely they are entitled to this being story being considered true & accurate unless proven otherwise with other evidence?

Well of course you're going to co-operate if you can prove your innocence. Him saying he went for a walk and his device showing constant movement without stopping to corroborate this would be ideal, if he was innocent.

 

[31550]

Is it always? Say for instance POS has it put to him what were you doing in the Canadian state forest area at the same time as SM disappeared.


If he were to say I was going on my normal Sunday morning walk, recreates the route with police. Says he went for a walk and returned home. Did not see or talk to anyone.


Does it then become incumbent on the police to prove that this statement is not true to pursure murder charges?


If one has an explanation for what they were doing in the area at the time and denies any involvement with SM disappearance surely they are entitled to this being story being considered true & accurate unless proven otherwise with other evidence?

Any answer to a leading / rhetorical question such as "What were you doing in the same place as SM" tacitly acknowledges the truth in the question. Saying 'no comment' acknowledges that he was there and knows SM was too. Say nothing.

 

[thumbs_up]

Fair to speculate at this stage that if POS could prove he was innocent then he would have given this information to police and would not have been charged with murder.

I'm not saying that he's guilty but that he is unable to demonstrate innocence.

 

[ms finch]

Is it always? Say for instance POS has it put to him what were you doing in the Canadian state forest area at the same time as SM disappeared.


If he were to say I was going on my normal Sunday morning walk, recreates the route with police. Says he went for a walk and returned home. Did not see or talk to anyone.


Does it then become incumbent on the police to prove that this statement is not true to pursure murder charges?


If one has an explanation for what they were doing in the area at the time and denies any involvement with SM disappearance surely they are entitled to this being story being considered true & accurate unless proven otherwise with other evidence?

Not exactly. Police don’t have to believe anything you say to pursue charges. They frame their case, which will include the statement you’ve made alongside any evidence they have and that they believe counters it, and the DPP decides whether overall it is a case they can prosecute. They may weight the statement with some significance, or they may decide it is insignificant or easily refutable. It would ultimately be up to a jury at some point to determine whether they find this believable or not, depending on whether such a statement came into evidence or whether the accused testified and stated it.

Essentially, claiming your version of events is simply that - a claim. It adds to the picture, but does not provide any sort of legally recognised line in the sand for police. Police can pursue charges even in circumstances where there appears to be irrefutable evidence of someone’s innocence.

You run the following risks in a situation where you offer that information.

First, the admission that you were in fact in the location where the alleged act took place. Absent a specific reason that benefits yourself to make this admission, why would you put yourself in the frame? Data showing a person is at a particular location via their phone actually only indicates the phone was at that location.

Second, when you say you did not see anyone, you better damn well hope that nobody else was in that area. Because if someone comes forward and says they were, you’re going to look like a liar whether you are lying or not.

Third, you’d want to hope you could demonstrate this was a “normal Sunday walk” and there was nothing odd on this particular occasion, because you open the door to any challenges on that.

And this is why lawyers usually advise people to remain silent until they’ve at least had a chance to assess the situation.