Rebecca Massey found guilty of murdering Elizabeth Booshand

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I must say that I am pleased that the defence ploy of pinning the death on emergency services personnel at the Hospital failed.

+1. Very poor form by Pappas. What idiot tries to argue 9 stabbings as self-defence and then put a subsequent death on the efforts of medical professionals. I hope for the sake of the Doctors that Pappas never has to go to emergency. I’d be too afraid to work on him if I was one. Imaging the law suits he’d try to hit you with if he wasn’t a happy camper at the end of it all.

Lookout Smithers said :

D2 said :

Lookout Smithers said :

Pappas was obligated…

The word you’re looking for is “obliged”.

*Bows head again* Thank you for pointing that out. I often use the wrong word or use it improperly. Sometimes, and I confess, I use words that I only think I know the meaning of. For shame Lookout Smithers

🙂 My pleasure.

D2 said :

Lookout Smithers said :

Pappas was obligated…

The word you’re looking for is “obliged”.

Why not obligated? Are you saying it is not a word? Look it up.

I ‘m an Australian so I use Australian, not American, English.

To be obliged is to be under an obligation. Why invent a new word when there’s already a perfectly good one?

D2 said :

Lookout Smithers said :

Pappas was obligated…

The word you’re looking for is “obliged”.

Why not obligated? Are you saying it is not a word? Look it up.

D2 said :

Lookout Smithers said :

Pappas was obligated…

The word you’re looking for is “obliged”.

*Bows head again* Thank you for pointing that out. I often use the wrong word or use it improperly. Sometimes, and I confess, I use words that I only think I know the meaning of. For shame Lookout Smithers

Lookout Smithers said :

Pappas was obligated…

The word you’re looking for is “obliged”.

And she is not to be confused with :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Massey

Murder convictions, Osama bin Laden; it’s the year for miracles.

It looks like the closer we get to the As-Predicted-By-The-Mayans second coming of Christ, Allah and Marilyn Manson in 2012, the fabric of reality is coming undone and the impossible is made possible.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I must say that I am pleased that the defence ploy of pinning the death on emergency services personnel at the Hospital failed.

I think that might have a desperate direction in the defense.

Wily_Bear said :

“A proud nerd who just discovered his first Johnson” Gold ! Lookoutsmithers, your insightful analysis is becoming something of a lifebouy in a sea of ignorance

I had resisted replying to Lookout Smithers, but this sums it up nicely.

There is now a rumour circulating that if you go into the chip shop and place your hand on the glass and say “MASSEY MASSEY MASSEY” you will get accidentally stabbed numerous times.

“A proud nerd who just discovered his first Johnson” Gold ! Lookoutsmithers, your insightful analysis is becoming something of a lifebouy in a sea of ignorance

The Frots said :

Lookout Smithers said :

Pommy bastard said :

Lookout Smithers said :

Yeah it would be the average think-a-lot who doesn’t believe anyone should have defence representation. Only because he doesn’t understand that without defence representation, you can’t even have a hearing, never mind a trial. One side cannot function without the other in western systems of justice. Pappas was obligated to defend his client as best possible. He is most likely headed to the bench first as he is that good. Whats the big cheer for? A person was killed? Has the American way rubbed off on us to this extent? Pfft.

Ooh, someone’s been taking the $3.00 “beginners legal studies” course! When you pass that, and move up to the $10 course you’ll learn never to extrapolate beyond the evidence presented, or you’ll lose the case.

Fact one: No one has claimed anyone should be denied defence representation.

Fact two: No one has missed the fact that both sides of the case require good representation.

Fact three: No one has denied that Pappas should use every possible means to defend his client (hint; not liking what someone says or does, does not deny them the right to do it.)

Fact four: There was no “big cheer”, nor were any “American ways” disclosed in the points quoted by you in this debate.

Sorry, you have failed this course, (please do not ask for a refund of your $3.00 as none will be forthcoming.)

Someone may take his own learned advice? Where did I claim anyone had made any of these claims? My dear fellow is it that I hypothesized? Is is merely an invented profile of what one might be like? As in what I think the attributes of one might be of one who can be akin to a low life barrister?
Read it again fool. Also whats with the point form table of data, albeit babble? What is wrong with regular prose? You come off like a proud nerd who just discovered his first Johnson. Have a great day champion point form. xxx

I really don’t get the point your making – do you think we are:

a. Americans
b. Against the Defence Barrister
c. Against the Judge
d. Against you personally?

Self representation at trial is never sanctioned in fairness to the defendant, not the prosecution. In this case, a jury decided (after only 4 hours) that it would be just dandy of she went to gaol for…………what was it…………..oh yeah, MURDER.

Hard to jump that one.

The charges being heard was not my conern, I have no value judgement, found guilty or otherwise. I was simply, perhaps without careful thinking and wording, giving my version of the usual profile of someone who holds barristers and solicitors in content generally. It is often followed by an outburst of injustice because of defence lawyers, or legal holes. I have heard it many a time. It was not meant to be directed at any one person. I don’t know who you/we are, less that you are important enough to address specifically. Though I am happy to if MURDER is caps worthy to you. I have much insight into the subject by virtue of investigations I observed closely. I hope that its a bit clearer in the above. I can’t say that it hasn’t happened before.

Lookout Smithers said :

Pommy bastard said :

Lookout Smithers said :

Yeah it would be the average think-a-lot who doesn’t believe anyone should have defence representation. Only because he doesn’t understand that without defence representation, you can’t even have a hearing, never mind a trial. One side cannot function without the other in western systems of justice. Pappas was obligated to defend his client as best possible. He is most likely headed to the bench first as he is that good. Whats the big cheer for? A person was killed? Has the American way rubbed off on us to this extent? Pfft.

Ooh, someone’s been taking the $3.00 “beginners legal studies” course! When you pass that, and move up to the $10 course you’ll learn never to extrapolate beyond the evidence presented, or you’ll lose the case.

Fact one: No one has claimed anyone should be denied defence representation.

Fact two: No one has missed the fact that both sides of the case require good representation.

Fact three: No one has denied that Pappas should use every possible means to defend his client (hint; not liking what someone says or does, does not deny them the right to do it.)

Fact four: There was no “big cheer”, nor were any “American ways” disclosed in the points quoted by you in this debate.

Sorry, you have failed this course, (please do not ask for a refund of your $3.00 as none will be forthcoming.)

Someone may take his own learned advice? Where did I claim anyone had made any of these claims? My dear fellow is it that I hypothesized? Is is merely an invented profile of what one might be like? As in what I think the attributes of one might be of one who can be akin to a low life barrister?
Read it again fool. Also whats with the point form table of data, albeit babble? What is wrong with regular prose? You come off like a proud nerd who just discovered his first Johnson. Have a great day champion point form. xxx

I really don’t get the point your making – do you think we are:

a. Americans
b. Against the Defence Barrister
c. Against the Judge
d. Against you personally?

Self representation at trial is never sanctioned in fairness to the defendant, not the prosecution. In this case, a jury decided (after only 4 hours) that it would be just dandy of she went to gaol for…………what was it…………..oh yeah, MURDER.

Hard to jump that one.

Pommy bastard said :

quote comment=”323501”]
Someone may take his own learned advice? Where did I claim anyone had made any of these claims? My dear fellow is it that I hypothesized? Is is merely an invented profile of what one might be like? As in what I think the attributes of one might be of one who can be akin to a low life barrister?
Read it again fool. Also whats with the point form table of data, albeit babble? What is wrong with regular prose? You come off like a proud nerd who just discovered his first Johnson. Have a great day champion point form. xxx

Ooh, touched a nerve there, did I?
Let’s see now;

“”Yeah it would be the average think-a-lot who doesn’t believe anyone should have defence representation. Only because he doesn’t understand that without defence representation, you can’t even have a hearing, never mind a trial.

Now, I would call that a declarative statement, referring to the hypothesised humour I posted.
If it was not referring to the humour I posted, then you have just imagined the thoughts and ideas of an imaginary person, and castigated them for something which was not posted here. Do you also write fairy stories?

Pappas was obligated to defend his client as best possible.

Wow, blinding insight there Obi Wan, still doesn’t move you out of the $3.00 course though.

He is most likely headed to the bench first as he is that good.

Nobody has disputing that, was it the mouse in your pocket who talked to you? Can you look into your crystal ball and give me next week’s Lottery numbers too.

As in what I think the attributes of one might be of one who can be akin to a low life barrister?

I recognise all the words, unfortunately in that order they make no sense.

What is wrong with regular prose?

I’d welcome some from you, if you know any, please elucidate..

You come off like a proud nerd who just discovered his first Johnson.

“Johnson”, isn’t that one of the “Americanisms” you were railing against?

Still no refunds for failure I’m afraid

Not at all, I apologize if that came off as offensive. I didn’t think it would result in all that point form data. It gets humorous as you read it but I am sorry for the time you have given doing it all.
Best
xx

quote comment=”323501”]
Someone may take his own learned advice? Where did I claim anyone had made any of these claims? My dear fellow is it that I hypothesized? Is is merely an invented profile of what one might be like? As in what I think the attributes of one might be of one who can be akin to a low life barrister?
Read it again fool. Also whats with the point form table of data, albeit babble? What is wrong with regular prose? You come off like a proud nerd who just discovered his first Johnson. Have a great day champion point form. xxx

Ooh, touched a nerve there, did I?
Let’s see now;

“”Yeah it would be the average think-a-lot who doesn’t believe anyone should have defence representation. Only because he doesn’t understand that without defence representation, you can’t even have a hearing, never mind a trial.

Now, I would call that a declarative statement, referring to the hypothesised humour I posted.
If it was not referring to the humour I posted, then you have just imagined the thoughts and ideas of an imaginary person, and castigated them for something which was not posted here. Do you also write fairy stories?

Pappas was obligated to defend his client as best possible.

Wow, blinding insight there Obi Wan, still doesn’t move you out of the $3.00 course though.

He is most likely headed to the bench first as he is that good.

Nobody has disputing that, was it the mouse in your pocket who talked to you? Can you look into your crystal ball and give me next week’s Lottery numbers too.

As in what I think the attributes of one might be of one who can be akin to a low life barrister?

I recognise all the words, unfortunately in that order they make no sense.

What is wrong with regular prose?

I’d welcome some from you, if you know any, please elucidate..

You come off like a proud nerd who just discovered his first Johnson.

“Johnson”, isn’t that one of the “Americanisms” you were railing against?

Still no refunds for failure I’m afraid

Pommy bastard said :

Lookout Smithers said :

Yeah it would be the average think-a-lot who doesn’t believe anyone should have defence representation. Only because he doesn’t understand that without defence representation, you can’t even have a hearing, never mind a trial. One side cannot function without the other in western systems of justice. Pappas was obligated to defend his client as best possible. He is most likely headed to the bench first as he is that good. Whats the big cheer for? A person was killed? Has the American way rubbed off on us to this extent? Pfft.

Ooh, someone’s been taking the $3.00 “beginners legal studies” course! When you pass that, and move up to the $10 course you’ll learn never to extrapolate beyond the evidence presented, or you’ll lose the case.

Fact one: No one has claimed anyone should be denied defence representation.

Fact two: No one has missed the fact that both sides of the case require good representation.

Fact three: No one has denied that Pappas should use every possible means to defend his client (hint; not liking what someone says or does, does not deny them the right to do it.)

Fact four: There was no “big cheer”, nor were any “American ways” disclosed in the points quoted by you in this debate.

Sorry, you have failed this course, (please do not ask for a refund of your $3.00 as none will be forthcoming.)

Someone may take his own learned advice? Where did I claim anyone had made any of these claims? My dear fellow is it that I hypothesized? Is is merely an invented profile of what one might be like? As in what I think the attributes of one might be of one who can be akin to a low life barrister?
Read it again fool. Also whats with the point form table of data, albeit babble? What is wrong with regular prose? You come off like a proud nerd who just discovered his first Johnson. Have a great day champion point form. xxx

Lookout Smithers said :

Yeah it would be the average think-a-lot who doesn’t believe anyone should have defence representation. Only because he doesn’t understand that without defence representation, you can’t even have a hearing, never mind a trial. One side cannot function without the other in western systems of justice. Pappas was obligated to defend his client as best possible. He is most likely headed to the bench first as he is that good. Whats the big cheer for? A person was killed? Has the American way rubbed off on us to this extent? Pfft.

Ooh, someone’s been taking the $3.00 “beginners legal studies” course! When you pass that, and move up to the $10 course you’ll learn never to extrapolate beyond the evidence presented, or you’ll lose the case.

Fact one: No one has claimed anyone should be denied defence representation.

Fact two: No one has missed the fact that both sides of the case require good representation.

Fact three: No one has denied that Pappas should use every possible means to defend his client (hint; not liking what someone says or does, does not deny them the right to do it.)

Fact four: There was no “big cheer”, nor were any “American ways” disclosed in the points quoted by you in this debate.

Sorry, you have failed this course, (please do not ask for a refund of your $3.00 as none will be forthcoming.)

Mr Gillespie said :

The court system is learning! At last, “murder” means just that, and not some malformation based on a faulty piece of legislation that was finally thrown out in September 2009.

Wasn’t it a jury decision? That means, don’t bother praising the judge. Another “no jury” trial a la Anu Singh and there will most probably be the same weaselly ‘Is Nibs decision based on a bit of toe cleavage stuck out from the dock.

buzz819 said :

Lookout Smithers said :

The Frots said :

Pommy bastard said :

But Ms Massey’s defence barrister Jack Pappas argued she was acting in self-defence and suggested an emergency operation at Canberra Hospital could also have contributed to Ms Booshand’s death.

He then went on to say that Jack the Ripper had never been caught, and there was no clear evidence of his death, so he couldn’t be ruled out. He also asserted taht it was not the stab wounds which caused death but Ms Booshand’s irresponsible bleeding. He acknowledged that the Grassy Knoll killer had used a high powered rifle, which may rule him out of this case, but that Mick Taylor had only faded into the sunset at the end of Wolf Creek, and could still be at large..

Honestly, is there a bigger bunch of slimeballs than the average barrister?

LOL my friend – From the firm of Snapper, Snorter, Silvertongue and Shakey no doubt!

Yeah it would be the average think-a-lot who doesn’t believe anyone should have defence representation. Only because he doesn’t understand that without defence representation, you can’t even have a hearing, never mind a trial. One side cannot function without the other in western systems of justice. Pappas was obligated to defend his client as best possible. He is most likely headed to the bench first as he is that good. Whats the big cheer for? A person was killed? Has the American way rubbed off on us to this extent? Pfft.

Yeah but the person who did it was found guilty, or didn’t you read that bit?

Outstanding. The world continues turning. Or spinning?

Lookout Smithers said :

The Frots said :

Pommy bastard said :

But Ms Massey’s defence barrister Jack Pappas argued she was acting in self-defence and suggested an emergency operation at Canberra Hospital could also have contributed to Ms Booshand’s death.

He then went on to say that Jack the Ripper had never been caught, and there was no clear evidence of his death, so he couldn’t be ruled out. He also asserted taht it was not the stab wounds which caused death but Ms Booshand’s irresponsible bleeding. He acknowledged that the Grassy Knoll killer had used a high powered rifle, which may rule him out of this case, but that Mick Taylor had only faded into the sunset at the end of Wolf Creek, and could still be at large..

Honestly, is there a bigger bunch of slimeballs than the average barrister?

LOL my friend – From the firm of Snapper, Snorter, Silvertongue and Shakey no doubt!

Yeah it would be the average think-a-lot who doesn’t believe anyone should have defence representation. Only because he doesn’t understand that without defence representation, you can’t even have a hearing, never mind a trial. One side cannot function without the other in western systems of justice. Pappas was obligated to defend his client as best possible. He is most likely headed to the bench first as he is that good. Whats the big cheer for? A person was killed? Has the American way rubbed off on us to this extent? Pfft.

Yeah but the person who did it was found guilty, or didn’t you read that bit?

The Frots said :

Pommy bastard said :

But Ms Massey’s defence barrister Jack Pappas argued she was acting in self-defence and suggested an emergency operation at Canberra Hospital could also have contributed to Ms Booshand’s death.

He then went on to say that Jack the Ripper had never been caught, and there was no clear evidence of his death, so he couldn’t be ruled out. He also asserted taht it was not the stab wounds which caused death but Ms Booshand’s irresponsible bleeding. He acknowledged that the Grassy Knoll killer had used a high powered rifle, which may rule him out of this case, but that Mick Taylor had only faded into the sunset at the end of Wolf Creek, and could still be at large..

Honestly, is there a bigger bunch of slimeballs than the average barrister?

LOL my friend – From the firm of Snapper, Snorter, Silvertongue and Shakey no doubt!

Yeah it would be the average think-a-lot who doesn’t believe anyone should have defence representation. Only because he doesn’t understand that without defence representation, you can’t even have a hearing, never mind a trial. One side cannot function without the other in western systems of justice. Pappas was obligated to defend his client as best possible. He is most likely headed to the bench first as he is that good. Whats the big cheer for? A person was killed? Has the American way rubbed off on us to this extent? Pfft.

Jack Pappas hasn’t been the same since Cass Elliot died…

Pommy bastard said :

But Ms Massey’s defence barrister Jack Pappas argued she was acting in self-defence and suggested an emergency operation at Canberra Hospital could also have contributed to Ms Booshand’s death.

Glad that a jury gave this defence the credence it deserved…

Pommy bastard said :

But Ms Massey’s defence barrister Jack Pappas argued she was acting in self-defence and suggested an emergency operation at Canberra Hospital could also have contributed to Ms Booshand’s death.

He then went on to say that Jack the Ripper had never been caught, and there was no clear evidence of his death, so he couldn’t be ruled out. He also asserted taht it was not the stab wounds which caused death but Ms Booshand’s irresponsible bleeding. He acknowledged that the Grassy Knoll killer had used a high powered rifle, which may rule him out of this case, but that Mick Taylor had only faded into the sunset at the end of Wolf Creek, and could still be at large..

Honestly, is there a bigger bunch of slimeballs than the average barrister?

Have to pay that one PB.

Lookout Smithers said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I must say that I am pleased that the defence ploy of pinning the death on emergency services personnel at the Hospital failed.

I don’t think that was the entire defense, as it really isn’t one. He suggested the possibility of a number of causes of death. You don’t think he went in and just blamed it on the ambos? It was the Emergency doctors that he claimed made a possible error with a last option procedure. Emergency services from memory didn’t get any blame? I could be wrong?

I was using emergency services in a very broad (and probably incorrect) way and included the emergency medical professionals

Pommy bastard said :

But Ms Massey’s defence barrister Jack Pappas argued she was acting in self-defence and suggested an emergency operation at Canberra Hospital could also have contributed to Ms Booshand’s death.

He then went on to say that Jack the Ripper had never been caught, and there was no clear evidence of his death, so he couldn’t be ruled out. He also asserted taht it was not the stab wounds which caused death but Ms Booshand’s irresponsible bleeding. He acknowledged that the Grassy Knoll killer had used a high powered rifle, which may rule him out of this case, but that Mick Taylor had only faded into the sunset at the end of Wolf Creek, and could still be at large..

Honestly, is there a bigger bunch of slimeballs than the average barrister?

LOL my friend – From the firm of Snapper, Snorter, Silvertongue and Shakey no doubt!

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I must say that I am pleased that the defence ploy of pinning the death on emergency services personnel at the Hospital failed.

I don’t think that was the entire defense, as it really isn’t one. He suggested the possibility of a number of causes of death. You don’t think he went in and just blamed it on the ambos? It was the Emergency doctors that he claimed made a possible error with a last option procedure. Emergency services from memory didn’t get any blame? I could be wrong?

But Ms Massey’s defence barrister Jack Pappas argued she was acting in self-defence and suggested an emergency operation at Canberra Hospital could also have contributed to Ms Booshand’s death.

He then went on to say that Jack the Ripper had never been caught, and there was no clear evidence of his death, so he couldn’t be ruled out. He also asserted taht it was not the stab wounds which caused death but Ms Booshand’s irresponsible bleeding. He acknowledged that the Grassy Knoll killer had used a high powered rifle, which may rule him out of this case, but that Mick Taylor had only faded into the sunset at the end of Wolf Creek, and could still be at large..

Honestly, is there a bigger bunch of slimeballs than the average barrister?

Mr Gillespie said :

The court system is learning! At last, “murder” means just that, and not some malformation based on a faulty piece of legislation that was finally thrown out in September 2009.

Again, 3 cheers for Justice Gray!

Yeah imagine that. Just over night the system rights itself to make sure you don’t have to look past a newspaper for your piece of mind.

I must say that I am pleased that the defence ploy of pinning the death on emergency services personnel at the Hospital failed.

Jury trial Mr G

I guess we won’t see her at the Ngunnawal or Charnwood shops for a while

grump said :

huzzah! is that 2 murder convictions in less than a year? This will thow the stats well out….

I’m shocked. Pleased, but shocked.

The court system is learning! At last, “murder” means just that, and not some malformation based on a faulty piece of legislation that was finally thrown out in September 2009.

Again, 3 cheers for Justice Gray!

I hope that there is some relief among them. What a tragic couple of lives lived and lived on the periphery.

Tell me it isn’t so!

So the “I accidentally slipped numerous times with a knife in my hand and she just happened to break my fall each time” defense didn’t work.

huzzah! is that 2 murder convictions in less than a year? This will thow the stats well out….