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

 

[thumbs_up]

I wonder why he would bypass the committal? Overconfidence?

 

[Edna Mode]

Perhaps can't afford rather than fired

He was using them, something happened

 

[Lifesvgood]

Worried some further evidence maybe found Hence the fast tracking

 

[thumbs_up]

Worried some further evidence maybe found Hence the fast tracking

I don't understand. I thought a committal hearing determines whether there's enough evidence to go to trial. Wouldn't bypassing that process mean he needs to wait longer to see what evidence they have?

I don't know how it all works, so this is a genuine curious question.

 

[31550]

I don't understand. I thought a committal hearing determines whether there's enough evidence to go to trial. Wouldn't bypassing that process mean he needs to wait longer to see what evidence they have?

I don't know how it all works, so this is a genuine curious question.

There could be several reasons why the defence would prefer to go straight to trial.

• It's faster, so if they believe they have a successful defence, he is out of custody and free earlier
• A committal hearing might require them to reveal their defence strategy, which then gives the prosecution time and means to find rebuttal witnesses etc. If the prosecution don't know what the defence is, then they need to be confident their case is water-tight.
• A committal hearing gives the prosecution opportunity to 'rehearse' and test their case somewhat. Also, by revealing details of the prosecution case, it might flush out additional witnesses or evidence currently unknown to the prosecution. By going straight to trial, the defence avoids this happening.

 

[Flog111]

Hope they’ve got some pretty hard evidence. Some phone pings is just not enough.

 

[Flog111]

There could be several reasons why the defence would prefer to go straight to trial.

• It's faster, so if they believe they have a successful defence, he is out of custody and free earlier
• A committal hearing might require them to reveal their defence strategy, which then gives the prosecution time and means to find rebuttal witnesses etc. If the prosecution don't know what the defence is, then they need to be confident their case is water-tight.
• A committal hearing gives the prosecution opportunity to 'rehearse' and test their case somewhat. Also, by revealing details of the prosecution case, it might flush out additional witnesses or evidence currently unknown to the prosecution. By going straight to trial, the defence avoids this happening.

Probably just me but it feels like they’re playing a game of chicken with POS. They haven’t got enough evidence and hoping he confesses.

 

[31550]

Probably just me but it feels like they’re playing a game of chicken with POS. They haven’t got enough evidence and hoping he confesses.

Hard to tell. They may be playing chicken. They may be playing chess.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

Probably just me but it feels like they’re playing a game of chicken with POS. They haven’t got enough evidence and hoping he confesses.

That's a big NO.
Dep of prosecutions playing that type of game is absolute suicidal.
Won't happen

 

[GrayRanga]

Hard to tell. They may be playing chicken. They may be playing chess.

A criminal trial is exactly that; a game of chess played under strict rules for the highest stakes of all in Australia; someone's freedom

The prosecution have to weave a narrative based on the evidence obtained and presented to the jury that the accused wilfully caused the victim's death.

A motive or supposition of a motive is immaterial to the narrative. The evidence has to stand alone and provide the story of what happened that day

It would appear at this stage that the defence is going to be, "I wasn't involved in her death and the evidence suggesting I was present at the time of her death cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I didn't murder her"

The Defence, by choosing not to go to commital, are reducing the possiblity of the lesser charges in lieu of murder being implimented at an early stage.

They're taking a winner takes all approach.

Of course, during the trial, the Prosecution may downgrade the charge or the Judge may direct the Jury to only consider a lesser charge

The onus is on the Prosecution to link the evidence that the accused was there and the victim's death was at his hands with an intent to kill or with intent to cause grievous bodikly harm.

All the evidence to be used by the Prosecution has to be given to Defence prior to the trial, the Defence is under no obligation to return the favour

 

[Munich]

Is the hearing at SC listed yet? Time etc?

 

[Macca180]

phone pings
cctv footage of him entering and leaving area
maybe visits to certain shops
maybe witness statements of his coming and goings
trace evidence on his shoes, clothes car of things

gona be interesting. they must have a smoking gun
possibly something related to victims body being in car

 

[jason_recliner]

phone pings
cctv footage of him entering and leaving area
maybe visits to certain shops
maybe witness statements of his coming and goings
trace evidence on his shoes, clothes car of things

gona be interesting. they must have a smoking gun
possibly something related to victims body being in car

The police must have absolute masses of evidence if it took the defence an additional three months to process and respond to it.