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

 

[mrskafoops]

If we trace it all back then everyone in Ballarat is related to each other. Is that what's being unconsciously implied??

That’s not at all what I meant

 

[Zidane98]

Time to move on from the speculation of parentage thanks, it's derailing the thread now. We'll just have to wait to see what the police have got.

Thanks.

Thanks, there was never anything in it.

 

[minivegscroll]

Regarding bail as per above BBM, in Victoria (and indeed pretty much all of Australia) it’s usually a ‘NoGo’ for those charged with Murder. The ‘remandee’ would need to make an application to the Supreme Court that demonstrated the exceptional circumstances that qualifies them to receive Bail approval. .. IMHO.

I am though somewhat confused by your opening paragraph, as on one hand you feel safe to assume that Police have the evidence necessary to substantiate their charge of Murder against POS - but you don’t think it’ll satisfy a magistrate … could you please elaborate on that statement.

I believe the magistrate would require a higher standard of proof/more evidence to send the case to trial than police would require to charge

 

[shorsky]

So Mini, are you suggesting that although Police have charged POS with Murder, a Magistrate may turn around & say ‘Sorry, I don’t believe he did it so I’m not sending him to trial. He’s free to go’

 

[GrayRanga]

So Mini, are you suggesting that although Police have charged POS with Murder, a Magistrate may turn around & say ‘Sorry, I don’t believe he did it so I’m not sending him to trial. He’s free to go’

if the Prosecution cannot present a prima facie case the accused committed the offences of which he has been charged, the Magistrate has to say ‘Sorry, I don’t believe the Prosecution has presented a case that the matter should go to trial. He’s free to go’

 

[Underarrest_]

I’ve been thinking about POS vehicle and if it had a removable canopy, possibly with a reinforced floor and if that canopy had been removed, dumped, destroyed or sold.

 

[shorsky]

if the Prosecution cannot present a prima facie case the accused committed the offences of which he has been charged, the Magistrate has to say ‘Sorry, I don’t believe the Prosecution has presented a case that the matter should go to trial. He’s free to go’

I understand that’s how the process works, however I also don’t believe that police would be so stupid as to make such serious charges without having enough evidence to take it to trial.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

I also don’t believe that police would be so stupid as to make such serious charges without having enough evidence to take it to trial.

Police are actually known to make stupid decisions regularly.
Prosecutors however need thier arm twisted a bit to agree to lay charges that are considered rubbish.

 

[31550]

Police are actually known to make stupid decisions regularly.
Prosecutors however need thier arm twisted a bit to agree to lay charges that are considered rubbish.

It's not necessarily stupidity, but surely not all cases which go to a committal hearing end up going to trial?
It should never be a foregone conclusion, and the committal process is an important part of the justice system.
There must be prima facie evidence of a case to answer, otherwise the entire system would be (even more) clogged with spurious litigation.
Sure the police need a threshold of evidence to even charge with murder, but surely that threshold must be even higher to actually go to trial for murder, and higher yet again to get a conviction. Presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, the right to a defence and a fair trial are all tenets of our justice system.

 

[Run n Spread]

It's not necessarily stupidity, but surely not all cases which go to a committal hearing end up going to trial?
It should never be a foregone conclusion, and the committal process is an important part of the justice system.
There must be prima facie evidence of a case to answer, otherwise the entire system would be (even more) clogged with spurious litigation.
Sure the police need a threshold of evidence to even charge with murder, but surely that threshold must be even higher to actually go to trial for murder, and higher yet again to get a conviction. Presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, the right to a defence and a fair trial are all tenets of our justice system.

Most do. Very rare in Vic a case is tossed. In fact the OPP can ignore the magistrate and proceed directly.
The defence can also elect to skip and fast track the case (like the mushroom woman).
Usually thou the defence run it to lock witnesses in to a version of events.

 

[Terrafirma]

So Mini, are you suggesting that although Police have charged POS with Murder, a Magistrate may turn around & say ‘Sorry, I don’t believe he did it so I’m not sending him to trial. He’s free to go’

I also understand it that the Prosecution can go to the Magistrate pre trial/hearing etc and check their evidence brief/case for his opinion or the DPP. In the case of Greg Lynn I believe the Magistrate told the Prosecution no to murder he would only proceed with Manslaughter. The pros appealed to the high court and they proved the Magistrate wrong and it proceeded with murder.

 

[Run n Spread]

It was decided during the committal this week that they would also be heard on the new November date (the 14th?). But the charges haven’t been confirmed and may not be publicly released as the defence is objecting to journos requests for disclosure. Erin Pearson from the Age stood up as the defence and Magistrate were discussing the application and advocated quite strongly for the release of the info. Magistrate shut the conversation down to time constraints. POS/prosecution were around 5 min late

Unless the traffic offences were same day/night before don't really see how they're relevant. In that case arresting police would be called as witnesses
Also at trial past convictions can't be bought up. I'm assuming that carries over to even traffic offences.

 

[reddog92]

Unless the traffic offences were same day/night before don't really see how they're relevant. In that case arresting police would be called as witnesses
Also at trial past convictions can't be bought up. I'm assuming that carries over to even traffic offences.

I am guessing they have something to do with the crime


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Run n Spread]

I am guessing they have something to do with the crime


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Back to hit n run theory
But again past convictions can't be raised.
E.g let's say someone is on trial for murder. And has killed 10 times before. Those 10 convictions can't be raised at trial.
Same would go here. Unless it's same day than you could introduce witness evidence test results etc

 

[Underarrest_]

Back to hit n run theory
But again past convictions can't be raised.
E.g let's say someone is on trial for murder. And has killed 10 times before. Those 10 convictions can't be raised at trial.
Same would go here. Unless it's same day than you could introduce witness evidence test results etc

Do they have to get the lesser matter out of the way before the trial (assuming it’s not connected?)
I’m also curious, why is criminal history part of a brief? Is this for serving purposes?

 

[Run n Spread]

Do they have to get the lesser matter out of the way before the trial (assuming it’s not connected?)
I’m also curious, why is criminal history part of a brief? Is this for serving purposes?

Not necessarily.
It isn't.
No idea.
Could actually be a standard driving offence. And due to delays can't be heard

 

[Underarrest_]

Not necessarily.
It isn't.
No idea.
Could actually be a standard driving offence. And due to delays can't be heard

Yeah sorry, I should have put criminal/traffic history.

 

[31550]

I am guessing they have something to do with the crime


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

There could be another connection. If the traffic matters are drug-related for instance. The traffic matters may provide evidence that POS was under the influence?

 

[shorsky]

I am guessing they have something to do with the crime


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Much better memories here than mine so please correct me if I’m wrong.

HOWEVER I’m pretty sure that the traffic offence with POS, his motorbike & a tree - did not occur at the time of the disappearance of SM.

I’m also pretty sure that the very publicised pics of POS out-on-the- town and snoring cocaine was not taken the night before Sam’s demise.

( Important Note - I’ve no connection with or knowledge of either Sam or Patrick) I just think it’s very important to deal with Facts ( lol … don’t we wish we had some). I always try to live by the adage of ‘walk a mile in those shoes’.

 

[Percel]

Much better memories here than mine so please correct me if I’m wrong.

HOWEVER I’m pretty sure that the traffic offence with POS, his motorbike & a tree - did not occur at the time of the disappearance of SM.

I’m also pretty sure that the very publicised pics of POS out-on-the- town and snoring cocaine was not taken the night before Sam’s demise.

( Important Note - I’ve no connection with or knowledge of either Sam or Patrick) I just think it’s very important to deal with Facts ( lol … don’t we wish we had some). I always try to live by the adage of ‘walk a mile in those shoes’.

From all info in this thread (and other) i completely concur

 

[reddog92]

Much better memories here than mine so please correct me if I’m wrong.

HOWEVER I’m pretty sure that the traffic offence with POS, his motorbike & a tree - did not occur at the time of the disappearance of SM.

I’m also pretty sure that the very publicised pics of POS out-on-the- town and snoring cocaine was not taken the night before Sam’s demise.

( Important Note - I’ve no connection with or knowledge of either Sam or Patrick) I just think it’s very important to deal with Facts ( lol … don’t we wish we had some). I always try to live by the adage of ‘walk a mile in those shoes’.

Oh yep I found the article. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[reddog92]

Does anyone know : when the police stated that POS deliberately attacked Samantha causing her death, does that 100% means it was deliberate? Or can the police say that in hopes of getting a confession that he accidentally killed her?

police believed the murder was "a deliberate act" and "not a hit and run".






Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[shorsky]

Does anyone know : when the police stated that POS deliberately attacked Samantha causing her death, does that 100% means it was deliberate? Or can the police say that in hopes of getting a confession that he accidentally killed her?

police believed the murder was "a deliberate act" and "not a hit and run".






Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I’m pretty sure that Police did not state those facts in that fashion i.e. the POS attack on SM was "a deliberate act and not a hit and run".
They were two seperate statements - it was in response to a later question from a journalist as to whether it was a ‘hit and run’ that Patten said ‘No’. .. . although I guess those are their beliefs. It’s not a ‘hit and run’ because she was not left at the scene.

In legal terms, a ‘deliberate act’ is one that is intentional and premeditated, and when talking about taking an action to harm someone, which results in their death - that pretty much constitutes a charge of Murder - imo.

In this situation, Patton said the arrest came after a “painstaking and methodical investigation”.
“He has been charged with murder so, by definition, we are saying this was a deliberate attack on Samantha,” he said.

I think it quite possible she was hit by his vehicle. … . after that I’m stumped. It seems at some stage she has become deceased and he’s then disposed of her body ! Why he would do that is beyond me.

 

[31550]

Does anyone know : when the police stated that POS deliberately attacked Samantha causing her death, does that 100% means it was deliberate? Or can the police say that in hopes of getting a confession that he accidentally killed her?

police believed the murder was "a deliberate act" and "not a hit and run".






Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Police can believe whatever they believe, and say whatever they choose to say. Whether or not it was a deliberate act (or anything else) needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

What actually happened has nothing to do with what anyone says, or believes, or even what is found in court. They are all separate and distinct things.

 

[reddog92]

I’m pretty sure that Police did not state those facts in that fashion i.e. the POS attack on SM was "a deliberate act and not a hit and run".
They were two seperate statements - it was in response to a later question from a journalist as to whether it was a ‘hit and run’ that Patten said ‘No’. .. . although I guess those are their beliefs. It’s not a ‘hit and run’ because she was not left at the scene.

In legal terms, a ‘deliberate act’ is one that is intentional and premeditated, and when talking about taking an action to harm someone, which results in their death - that pretty much constitutes a charge of Murder - imo.

In this situation, Patton said the arrest came after a “painstaking and methodical investigation”.
“He has been charged with murder so, by definition, we are saying this was a deliberate attack on Samantha,” he said.

I think it quite possible she was hit by his vehicle. … . after that I’m stumped. It seems at some stage she has become deceased and he’s then disposed of her body ! Why he would do that is beyond me.

Yes I also lean towards he has hit her with his vehicle, but was it an accident? How would they know whether it was an accident or on purpose anyway? Especially since he isn’t talking. But one would think if it was a true accident and he freaked out and disposed of her body, wouldn’t you confess and give the location of the body? You would receive a way shorter sentence and everyone in Australia wouldn’t think you’re a raging psychopath, just a scared moron. Instead he isn’t talking and not giving up the location? That’s so suspicious and takes my mind off in a different direction.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com