Scandal Marlion Pickett - In Custody for multiple offences - Later bailed.

[Wosh]

Pickett has been charged by WA Police with four counts of aggravated burglary, with three counts of stealing and three counts of criminal damage among his other charges.
The alleged offences took place between December 2022 and January 2023.
Pickett has a “strong intent” to defend himself, his manager Anthony Van Der Wielen told 7NEWS in a statement.

Racist comments will immediately cop a long break from Bigfooty, discuss the issue not the skin colour or race.
Thank you.

P.S This thread has nothing to do with the Clarkson/Racism review discussion.
This thread is not the place to discuss the prison system and prisoner rehabilitation, you can take that to the SRP board.
This is the scandals and rumours board only, please stay on topic in here.

 

[StMojo]

It looks like in that case Milne and St Kilda FC agreed he should take indefinite leave after being charged in 2013, 9 years after the incident giving rise to the charges. Milne missed 3 matches around the middle of that season.

I think in this case, given Marlion is defending the charges, the Magistrate has indicated the case against him is not overwhelming, and he has not been involved in some heavily stigmatised wrongdoing, it would just come down to whether Richmond FC and Marlion himself believe he is in a fit state to continue playing.

I half expect Pickett to play this weekend against St Kilda.

Phone got pinged in the area, they will have so much Metadata to sort through case could go for a Decade

 

[mcgrath_truther]

Could you imagine bud if this was Stringer or any other Dons player, Gill would have put the handcuffs on him ******* self!!!!

if an essendon player had done this i’d expect them to not play until it’s resolved, let the legal system run its course, don’t let sports interfere

 

[JackOutback]

I think in this case, given Marlion is defending the charges, the Magistrate has indicated the case against him is not overwhelming, and he has not been involved in some heavily stigmatised wrongdoing, it would just come down to whether Richmond FC and Marlion himself believe he is in a fit state to continue playing.

I half expect Pickett to play this weekend against St Kilda.

I'll take things that didn't happen for $100, thanks.

In granting bail, Magistrate Erin O’Donnell said the charges were “very serious”, and if convicted Mr Pickett would likely face a term of immediate imprisonment. She also said there did “seem to be a fair bit of good circumstantial evidence”.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I'll take things that didn't happen for $100, thanks.

I stand corrected but "fair bit of good circumstantial evidence" is not like she is saying the Police have an overwhelming case.

 

[HTPunter]

I hope you can read. You understand the police have not alleged he was at any of the premises.

They put him in the vicinity of one of the burglaries at the time of one by a phone ping so no

 

[LunchboxLegend]

I stand corrected but "fair bit of good circumstantial evidence" is not like she is saying the Police have an overwhelming case.

Possibly because a magistrate is supposed to be balanced, unbiased.

Thats why you don’t see them saying “Holy Cow, you’re buggered Marlion, this Is a slam dunk. Hope you like orange jumpsuits lol”

 

[MisterMarcus]

I stand corrected but "fair bit of good circumstantial evidence" is not like she is saying the Police have an overwhelming case.

In judicial speak, that kind of IS saying the police have an overwhelming case.....

 

[My_Username]

I stand corrected but "fair bit of good circumstantial evidence" is not like she is saying the Police have an overwhelming case.

It's a bail hearing, not a trial.

The police/prosecutor don't need to prove the case, or use all the evidence they have, they just need to convince the judge that there is enough of a case to be worthy of further examination (AKA a trial) with all the time/expense that will involve.

Judge was basically saying that they'll need more to convict, but they showed they have enough to justify it moving forward to a full trail.

 

[Saab NLAW]

It's not the government's fault.

But I'd prefer the government (and all of us for that matter) considered the longer term approach to this stuff.

What benefits society more?

Does locking someone in a cell to punish them, then letting them back out in a worse state help society in the long term?

If you can lock that same deadshit up, then release them as a better person that can positively contribute to society, surely that's a better outcome?


We all feel like giving our kids a clip across the ear from time to time, and sometimes it's effective - but we all know that teaching them good behaviour is the far more effective method to raising good children.

It's nice to have these feel-good thoughts, unfortunately the reality is that a vile, disgusting person is going to remain a vile and disgusting person no matter what someone else tries to do for them.

 

[geoffjennings79]

I stand corrected but "fair bit of good circumstantial evidence" is not like she is saying the Police have an overwhelming case.

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Playing semantics over your interpretation of "overwhelming" doesn't change the implication from the magistrate that he's in very deep doo-doo.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

It's nice to have these feel-good thoughts, unfortunately the reality is that a vile, disgusting person is going to remain a vile and disgusting person no matter what someone else tries to do for them.

it's not about 'feel-good'. It's about the fact that I have to live with these people in our society.

It's not to be nice to them. It's so I can walk down the street without dodging deadshits and losers every 100 metres.

 

[JHCAT23]

I wonder if he told Richmond once he knew they wanted to speak with him? Did he tell anyone at Richmond staff or player about what he did in dec-jan. Did they try to cover up?

 

[nut]

I wonder if he told Richmond once he knew they wanted to speak with him? Did he tell anyone at Richmond staff or player about what he did in dec-jan. Did they try to cover up?

Omg

 

[Brett C]

I'll take things that didn't happen for $100, thanks.

Don’t bring facts into the argument when feelings are all that matter

 

[PoppedCorn]

You gotta give it to BigFooty, every club has one (some many!) of those psycho mega-posters ready and mobilised within hours of a player being accused of a crime and they wow us all with their in-depth knowledge of not only the player’s character and the case in question but also their encyclopaedic knowledge of the criminal justice system, police tactics and intentions, complex cultural considerations and of course, a fully accurate moral compass to wrap it all up.

Outstanding work.

Good job you mentioned it
Otherwise none of us reading would've known this type of stuff was going on

 

[twiggy4PM]

I stand corrected but "fair bit of good circumstantial evidence" is not like she is saying the Police have an overwhelming case.

A magistrate cannot say that the police have an overwhelming case. Not until they have heard all the evidence. The fact that they commented as much as they did would indicate that the beak thought there was a case to answer.

 

[LunchboxLegend]

I wonder if he told Richmond once he knew they wanted to speak with him? Did he tell anyone at Richmond staff or player about what he did in dec-jan. Did they try to cover up?

who cares what Richmond knew. It’s not their job to call crimestoppers if they hear of something an employee did.

 

[Chief]

The ‘aggravated’ charge implies they were ready and willing to commit violence against one or more persons.

Is that detailed anywhere? Because I don't think that is the only definition of "aggravated".

 

[LunchboxLegend]

Is that detailed anywhere? Because I don't think that is the only definition of "aggravated".

yes. In the crimes act.

 

[Maylandsman]

They put him in the vicinity of one of the burglaries at the time of one by a phone ping so no

Even that is tenuous due to unreliability.

 

[Chief]

yes. In the crimes act.

WA? It doesn't look like it.

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 77​

Aggravated burglary

S. 77(1) amended by Nos 9008
s. 2(1)
(Sch. item 2(a)), 9048 s. 4(a)(b), 9323 s. 2(b), 66/1996 s. 201(2), substituted by No. 48/1997
s. 54.

(1) A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he or she commits a burglary and—

(a) at the time has with him or her any firearm or imitation firearm, any offensive weapon or any explosive or imitation explosive; or

(b) at the time of entering the building or the part of the building a person was then present in the building or part of the building and he or she knew that a person was then so present or was reckless as to whether or not a person was then so present.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Find this point in the Age article pretty damning towards Pickett. If true, don’t see much ground for him to either not being involved or at a minimum, being an accomplice and aware of what was happening.

“It’s also alleged a campervan that was used to transfer some money interstate was rented in his name, and that clothing worn by the offenders was purchased by Pickett.

Pickett then allegedly received payments of $6000 and $9000 into his bank account.”

You don’t receive those type of payments for no reason… and awfully convenient after an alleged 380k has just been stolen when you just happen to be “in the vicinity”.

 

[LunchboxLegend]

WA? It doesn't look like it.

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 77​

Aggravated burglary

S. 77(1) amended by Nos 9008
s. 2(1)
(Sch. item 2(a)), 9048 s. 4(a)(b), 9323 s. 2(b), 66/1996 s. 201(2), substituted by No. 48/1997
s. 54.

(1) A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he or she commits a burglary and—

(a) at the time has with him or her any firearm or imitation firearm, any offensive weapon or any explosive or imitation explosive; or

(b) at the time of entering the building or the part of the building a person was then present in the building or part of the building and he or she knew that a person was then so present or was reckless as to whether or not a person was then so present.

if you go to pull a job on a place, and take a weapon, it’s implied you are willing to use that weapon.

If you go to pull a job, and know there are people there, it’s implied you are willing to commit violence against that person.

 

[StMojo]

Even that is tenuous due to unreliability

 

[Chief]

if you go to pull a job on a place, and take a weapon, it’s implied you are willing to use that weapon.

If you go to pull a job, and know there are people there, it’s implied you are willing to commit violence against that person.

Is that the court's interpretation?