I guess the old adage about innocent until proven guilty has played out here

Creek should sue the NBL and SEM for standing him down!

I'd be going after any sponsor that dropped him as well

You are kidding me re the asterisk, he said he wasn't guilty, there obviously wasn’t enough evidence or no evidence as the whole story could have been made up by someone out to get him. This not the nrl where players are regularly on assault chargers. I’m glad his lawyers went into bat for him and he was allowed to play on.

To much trial by media and social media, it’s wrong.

Here come the internet legal experts.

The charges being dropped does not mean he is completely innocent of the alleged crime. They may have been dropped because the victim was unwilling to proceed, or because it was going to be unlikely to get a prosecution because there was no other material evidence.

I'm not trying to say he did it, just that the evidence was never tested and he was never found "not guilty."

"This not the nrl where players are regularly on assault chargers. "

What? You think his innocence has something to do with the sporting code he plays?

Exactly. The alleged victim would have been told that the cross-examination would have been excruciating and upsetting, and she may have chosen not to proceed.

Two things. A woman was hospitalised, and Creek has not been found innocent.

Again it's all speculation, the girl decided not to go on with, where is the proof in that statement. I can say she made it all up, where is the proof in that statement.

^ wrong

All I know is that all the people that posted stuff about Mitch including some things said on hear are going to have a stressful few months ahead of them

Police only investigated one persons version of events to create the charges, when all the facts where presented it was thrown out

she was hospitalised??? ba ha ha ha

There is no proof in either statement but the statistical likelihood of an assault victim not wanting to proceed is far greater than an assault victim making the story up.

"when all the facts where presented it was thrown out"

That just isn't true at all. Don't make stuff up to try and sound like you know what you're talking about.

I wonder if seeing creek being allowed to play on affected the decision to drop the charges

"All I know is that all the people that posted stuff about Mitch including some things said on hear are going to have a stressful few months ahead of them"

Wait, are you seriously suggesting Creek is going to sue people for comments made about him and these people should be shaking in their boots? Hahaha fucking idiot, go and do your homework.

Thank God there are a few people on here with a brain, not just victim-blaming a**holes. The keyboard experts claiming it must have been "made up" are absolutely full of crap. As others have pointed out, charges being dropped don't mean shit, it's likely it was too stressful to proceed with, NOT because it didn't happen or that Creek is innocent.

I've already seen one dickhead on twitter claim that the charges being dropped mean the accusations were baseless all because the alleged victim wanted 15 mins of fame.

#937 how the fuck do you know, unless you are the charging officer, you have no idea. The whole story could have been fabricated as a pay back for the relationship break down.

I bet the same people who are celebrating Creek's "innocence" also think Derek Chauvin got an unfair trial.

#943 It is obvious Chauvin didn't get a fair trail.

The whole story could have been fabricated as a pay back for the relationship break down.

Yeah, she totally smashed her own face in to get payback. Dickhead.

#944 hasn't got a clue about how any of this works.

Lovebroker once again comes in with the stupidest comments.

#947 it's obvious you don't. Watch what happens on appeal when they actually apply the law douche

LOL at "payback" comment. Definitely an angry white dude. You really think someone wants "fame" that way? Mate, there are FAR easier ways to get attention. Off you f*ck.

Which laws weren't applied?

When you kneel on someone's neck for 9 minutes and all of your former commanding officers testify against you for not following any sort of protocol, it's a damning way of proving your guilt.

Yeah there is definitely an incel neckbeard in this thread who is one step away from saying she probably deserved it.

#952 it doesn't prove murder. It proves manslaughter for sure.

Never doubted him for one bit !!! Unlike those who hate and said all that bs he was found innocent now STFU anybody still hating E A D !!!! Hahahah

#956 he was not found innocent at all

"#952 it doesn't prove murder. It proves manslaughter for sure."

You really are just guessing at this stage.

#960 Ya think Einstein. Maybe go get an education.

956 show us where he was found innocent? That's not what happened at all.

" And she presented with serious facial injuries. "

This does not mean that Creek caused those injuries.

I think the NBL should have handled this better but just because the Police charged and then withdrew shouldn't attract speculation that Creek did something wrong or nothing wrong.

963 - that isn't what happens with respect to the rule of law mate.

You aren’t proven innocent. You are innocent until proven guilty.

Unfortunately, as is proven in the Creek example people are no longer innocent until proven guilty as a result of media and social media character assassination.

Even when charges are dropped in full by the prosecutors prior to Trial we still have the keyboard warriors saying he is guilty and the alleged "victim" merely did not want to give evidence when there is no evidence whatsoever that this is in fact the case.

Not even the most minor of assault charges of common assault was pursued.

Yet people were quick to character assassinate Mitch and condemn the NBL and SEM Phoenix.

Innocent until proven guilty is an absolute pillar of any good legal system.

Also, the fact that this has been dropped, is not great for Creek either. While I'm sure he is relieved, sometimes it’s better to have your day in Court and be found not guilty to clear your name. Even if he has done nothing wrong - which only him and the other party know - the entire episode will hang over him from now on.

we still have the keyboard warriors saying he is guilty and the alleged "victim" merely did not want to give evidence when there is no evidence whatsoever that this is in fact the case.

No one said he is guilty, they are merely speculating why the charges were suddenly dropped.

Some keyboard warriors are saying she made it up as payback - do you have issues with those comments too?

"#960 Ya think Einstein. Maybe go get an education."

OK then, explain where I've gone wrong and how the incorrect laws were applied.

BA Integrity Unit still investigating the incidents.

Amen 966.

There's a lot of smoke around this. People who know Creek, know there is some questionable, entitled male athlete behaviour he's prone to, including "Tinder Challenges" which is pretty immature for a man nearly 30.

Unfortunate outcome. Seems like there was a lot more going on.

Rainman, they can't drop it on her say so but if she becomes unwilling to testify then it makes it harder to get a conviction.

"He had been hit with 11 charges relating to November 22, 2020, including that he took a photo or video of a woman's private parts without her consent and injured her.

He was charged with "visually capturing the victim's (private parts) in circumstances where it would be reasonable for the victim to expect that (they) could not be captured", two counts of recklessly cause injury, one count of intentionally cause injury, one count of cause injury, and six counts of unlawful assault."

Gee whiz

It would have been better for him to go through a trial and be found not guilty. With the current situation there is always going to be an element of doubt of whether he assulted someone or not.

So it was alleged sexual assault as well as physical. I wouldn't be surprised at all if she didn't want to testify

Please see Josh Reynolds incident.

Was arrested and charged with DV and it come out the alleged victim made it all up and had a long history of this behaviour.

She is then rewarded with a spot in reality tv show SAS and 13 different aliases.

Without knowing the facts and evidence you cannot speculate either way.

Not at all LV. He was not found innocent as you maintained he needed to be all along.

#985 exactly. No one knows what happened..

Considering the seriousness of ALL charges, he should have been stood down from the time he was charged and only reinstated today.

The Basketball Australia Code of Conduct does not need to mimic an entire court process as LV erroneously suggested.

Koberulz, his next thought would be about that all Melbourne grand final he wants so desperately, probably so Perth aren't in the GF again. No thoughts given to a woman who suffered serious facial injuries. Great Christian attitude, LV.

Hoops.com.au nufties

GUILTY TIL PROVEN INNOCENT!!

Utter morons.

I hope each and everyone of you have a false accusation levelled on you or your kids.

I hope your daughter gets belted by a professional athlete.

Yes some people act so certain he is guilty even tho they have no evidence whatsoever. That seems a bit sick.

Innocent. Charges dropped.

Deal with it.

Charges dropped does not mean innocent, fuckwit.

INNOCENT
FREE
NOT CHARGED
NOT IN JAIL
DEAL

I'm putting this out there now, if people continue to infer things about this case that are not true, they will be followed up with the full force possible.

Sure they will.

Creek wouldn't even know how to spell IP.

Yet....thrown out of court

Hyperbole overload from LV there

Still waiting for the twit to explain why the Chauvin verdict was incorrect.

Spot on there LV.

"But don't ignorantly or arrogantly throw shade on those who respectfully disagree."

You just called koberulz a teenager while miscontruing everything he said but now you demand respectful responses. How about go and fuck yourself!

You are innocent until proven guilty. It's very simple really.

To many haters and I’m 100% behind Chauvin being found guilty.

You have to be charged to be found innocent

LV, a few posts ago you asked people to respectfully engage if they disagree with your views. Koberulz just did that but your first reaction is to call him an ideologue again. Maybe it's you who is unwilling to listen if that's going to be your immediate reaction.

Saying "not proven guilty = innocent" is the very definition of black and white thinking.

Respectfully LV, if you came home and found Creek in your bed fucking your wife, which side would you jump in on?

" No shit, you think the police might've taken that into consideration during their four month long investigation and before deciding to charge him?"

They would have made their decision based on the admissible evidence available to them at that time. If different evidence became available later or something made them think that the evidence they had earlier was no longer reliable or cogent then that may have changed their thinking and contributed, in whole or part, in them dropping the prosecution. It happens more frequently than you may think. If Police got it right 100% of the time you'd see 100% successful prosecutions and/or no need for a Court process at all.

#039 that's what many of us have been suggesting. The initial evidence may no longer be supported by the alleged victim because she didn't want to go through with the court case.

Just putting that out here... there's generally a reason why the prosecution applies to have charges withdrawn.

" If you rob a bank and never get caught it does not mean you've never robbed a bank."

You are right. But until you are prosecuted and tried, usually before your peers, you are innocent in the eyes of the law. This is the golden thread of English criminal law.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolmington_v_DPP

In this matter, Creek has not been prosecuted and he has not been found guilty. For us to speculate what he did or didn't do, based on charges that have since been withdrawn, is foolish. Similarly, to speculate about the victim and her motives, is also foolish and bordering on defamatory.

The real problem, in my opinion, is the way the NBL dealt with it and the subsequent backflip. I hope they implement policy to be clear what will happen in the event something like this happens again.

I cant find the article online KR. Do you have a link?

Never mind, found it

" You don't get found innocent if you're charged, either. You get found either guilty or not guilty. "Not guilty" doesn't mean "didn't do it", it means "prosecution did not sufficiently prove their case"."

Thank you. I was about to have a seizure reading both pro-Creek and anti-Creek groups misunderstanding the criminal law process.

" #039 that's what many of us have been suggesting. The initial evidence may no longer be supported by the alleged victim because she didn't want to go through with the court case."

I think some people are putting too much weight on that likely being the case. Reading between the lines of the NBL reinstating Creek and koberulz comment that the victim is disappointed the charges have been withdrawn suggests that this wasn't the victim not wanting to go through with things, but rather there is something else that has swayed the prosecution to drop the charges.

From memory, there was to be a hearing about now. Out of curiosity, did the prosecution drop the charges before or after that hearing?

It could be as simple as one person's word against another. I've been both the accused and the victim in assault situations, both got dismissed because it came down to having zero evidence meaning getting a conviction was very unlikely and the process stopped.

They charged with LV counts, LV. They don't do that unless she is credible, particularly over a timeframe of four months.

Thankfully these police took the allegations seriously and saw the process through as best they could. I can only imagine what the outcome would have been if it were left up to the Melbourne sporting fanbase.

*with 11 counts, LV

KR - just curious, have you heard the rumours about what happened in the situation? Not asking you to say the rumours, but wondering if you have heard what allegedly occurred.

What ideology does koberulz have here?

The rumour is he punched the shit out her, then took pictures of her snatch. Or vice versa.

" now regret responding to you at all, given you clearly haven't bothered to read anything about what's going on."

I am geoblocked from accessing Australian news from my current location even after VPN.

Given that they've dropped the charges at the hearing suggests that, in my experience, someone on the prosecution side jumped too early to lay charges OR evidence turned up that made the prosecution untenable. I would have also suggested a private settlement or the women’s personal testimony being critical to a successful prosecution being withdrawn, but given her comments on record either of these are not possible. Given the NBL and the prosecution did a serious U turn, in my opinion there must have either been exonerating evidence that came up late in favour of Creek or evidence that cast serious doubt about the victim’s allegations.

"The victim being disappointed makes it likely that the police dropped charges because of a lack of evidence"

Police wouldn't have pressed charges unless they had enough evidence to at least try to prosecute. If they had insufficient evidence to make a decent prosecution case, it would just be thrown out at a preliminary stage and the prosecutor would look like Daniel Johnson trying to play defence: useless.

Something has changed at some point. That change is broadly in Creek’s favour. I am, however, surprised that the prosecution hasn’t commented at all on their reasons given the publicity surrounding the case.

"Such a long investigation".

FYI - the average time period for a criminal investigation is around 120 days give or take. So your long investigation was about on par with the average.

Bottom line - legally innocent. We don't know what happened or if there is anything of concern.

I say this because I personally know of a case where someone was charged and they later had to be dropped because the events alleged did not happen at all, and another where the events were completely misconstrued.

We simply don’t know, his reputation is shot regardless now as a result.

" Again, the NBL U-turn means nothing. They didn't have the power to suspend him."

They may not have had a legal basis, but if the case was strong enough they would have worked with SEM to at least stand him down or informally made it impossible for him to play. The fact that they didn't doesn’t pass the sniff test: to me, they did not think these charges would stick and stuck by Creek even given his history. In recent times, the Breakers have suspended Glen Rice Jnr and not suspended Corey Webster when those players have faced charges. I think the player’s side of the story does have weight, and the NBL and SEM felt that the charges weren’t strong. Otherwise, legal basis or not, Creek would not be playing.

"Still, contemplating this requires deeper thinking than many here are willing to do."

This coming from the guy who thinks "legal innocence" is the only end result imaginable.

The BA Integrity Unit still has options but are limited in what info they will get to warrant any further punishment

I should have said, if the NBL perceived that the case was strong enough based on the information available to them. Much of that would have been based on the information that Creek and his legal team would have disclosed. I am sure they would have provided information to SEM management at least about their side of the story, including evidence or witnesses they may have, which may have also consisted of other SEM players or staff. This is all conjecture, of course, and just an attempt to understand why the prosecution dropped the case. But it is not a small matter for them to do so.

Somehow, every Hoops discussion ends up in a LV and/or koberulz black hole where those two individuals think that they're undeniably correct.

Stop saying ideologues when you can't even explain what the word means.

"Clearly, further information came to light over the past month, or today, that cast doubt on the likelihood of a successful prosecution.

What that information was, who knows.

It may not be anything that caused the police to doubt her credibility. It may well have been something that arose from the defense side.

We have very little real information to go off.

But of course that didn't stop the sanctimonious, the easily outraged and the Ideologues from jumping to all kinds of conclusions, and today doubling down with lunacy about how he hasn't been "found" innocent, whatever that's supposed to mean. "

You were the one who speculated that she wasn't credible. Is your ideology that of toxic masculinity where women need to know their roles in the home and society?

"Toxic masculinity" is just an overrated buzzword

Let's keep this to a genuine discussion about Mitch Creek, not some concepts that are popular in university gender studies departments"

You were the one who suggested she may lack credibility, then you went on to say no one else should speculate as to why the charges were dropped. My assumption is that you're OK with criticism towards the alleged female victim, but not against the male athlete whose balls you want to fondle.

If there is another term for toxic masculinity you'd prefer me to use, let me know.

"DV is a scourge on society (one of many) but one needn't promote their credentials in calling out DV before having a discussion about a case relating to a bball player on a bball forum, you petulant, potty mouthed child!"

What is wrong with you?? You have completely failed to make any salient point in this thread, you are demanding a certain behaviour by others which you don't abide by yourself, and you also demand the subject be changed when an argument gets too close to the crux of the matter. Throw in some ridiculous ad hominem arguments and I'm absolutely baffles why you're even bothering to type words for others to read.

LV has just jumped the shark.

The hilarious thing here is that LV has not "learned" anything as he's got older because he still decides on a position then talks a whole lot of shit trying to prove it from then on.

Hahahaha and he's just proved my point perfectly. A lack of username apparently means i cant possibly be forming a proper criticism of his terrible arguments....

I'd love to see an NBL boxing promotion for charity. Main event: LV v koberulz.

LV is spot on. Creek is legally innocent.

There is no ambiguity. There is no competing argument.

Koberulez is just plain wrong - as he has been the entire time since declaring Creek guilty based on The Age article.

Koberulez - instead of worrying about Creek, what are your thoughts on Michael Jordan agreeing to give a speech at Kobe's Hall of Fame induction?

Should he respectfully decline given according to your logic Kobe is guilty of rape? Maybe you should tweet MJ and give him your advice?

Koberulz, you are constantly on here making comments in areas of expertise in which you have none. Creek is innocent of the crime and it has been dropped. By continuing to claim he is not innocent, then you are defaming him and will only be able to defend an allegation of defamation if you can prove what you are saying is true - which I suggest you cannot". I wish you well with this.

Last warning for those who think it is ok to defame people!

" The only person who has been defamed in this thread is the woman Creek was accused of assaulting."

Yes, she has been defamed.

But, by definition, defamation is a published statement that would cause someone to think less of someone. There are posts here that might cause people to think less of Creek and therefore he may have been defamed too.

" Well, that and the fact that he lost in court. Or does court not count now? I'm confused."

If you're talking about the 2003 sexual assault case, Kobe wasn’t found guilty. The criminal charges were dropped and the civil case was settled. He didn’t lose in court though he did issue a public apology.

"Yeah, she totally smashed her own face in to get payback. Dickhead."

While I'm not suggesting it's likely because I know nothing about the case, self-destructive behaviour is far more common than you seem to think. I have first-hand experience with someone suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder who behaved exactly in this way. Again, not making any insinuation about the woman in this case, but it is not unreasonable for an outsider to perceive this as possible.

"Does this mean a lot of us were too quick to jump to conclusions that he should be kept off the court etc" Sure does.

koberulz, you have cited a dictionary, not the legal test for defamation. The truth element comes in as part of a defence to defamation, not whether the statement itself is defamatory.

In order to determine falsity, you have to prove truth.

You can't prove anything you’ve said about Creek is true.

You also can’t rely on honest opinion because you don’t have a factual basis on which your opinion is based.

Sigh. You're right koberulz, I’m wrong. I’ll just look up at my LLB (Hons) on the wall and the published peer review research on media law on the shelf as my consolation that I’m not illiterate.

Jeez now we have KR the lawyer. Doctor too. Give me a break. As a basketball I would never want Creek on my team. Clearly toxic.

" Maybe you should spend less time doing that and more time actually reading my posts."

I've read your posts. It’s almost as disastrous as LV. Almost.

Koberulez - whether or not you followed the NBA for many years is irrelevant to the question.

Should Kobe be inducted into the Hall of Fame applying your very own "logic" you applying to the Creek situation?

Is Michael Jordan a disgrace for agreeing to speak at the ceremony?

Just want to understand your logic.

All I can come up with is you like Kobe (in fact he rules) but you don't like Creek.

Explain to me how I am wrong and it’s not just your personal bias impacting your logic. Explain how you aren’t a hypocrite. Explain that you weren’t too quick to judge and demonstrated great arrogance that Mitch was definitely guilty when you have no way of knowing what actually happened.

You posted on countless occasions that those merely pointing out innocent until proven guilty were wrong.

In the same way you generalised and guessed that Mitch was guilty on the back of an Age article describing a criminal investigation it can be thrown back to you by way of an educated generalisation that no doubt a very experienced team of legal prosecutors had examined all the evidence from both sides and decided they had no prospect at all to prove even the most minor of charges.

Surely you appreciate that merely saying “I don’t know much about the Kobe case” isn’t an answer to my allegation that you are a biased hypocrite.

Finally. You admit you are a biased hypocrite. Well done.

Now on to the next criminal case for you to involve yourself in.

By the way, stop saying you have any evidence. You do not. Take that as helpful advice.

What if someone other than Creek caused the injuries?

Didn't want to take the advice Koberulz?

You have no evidence. You are not a member of Vic Police. You are not a member of the Court. You are not a member of the prosecution and you clearly are not a part of Creek’s legal team.

When you post at 163 clearly "that the only evidence we have supports a finding of guilt" then you are engaging in defamatory conduct that also puts Isaac at potential risk.

You cannot possibly support that allegation.

Why you would post that after the prosecution have already spoken that they don’t agree with you (and they, unlike you, have the evidence) beggars belief.

Take the advice and find the next criminal case to worry about.

Surely you know the news articles are not evidence. Are you taking the piss or was that serious?

Assuming you are being serious then what news articles are there summarising Creek's version that you based your verdict of guilt on? Oh that is right. There aren’t any.

Or is he guilty because he didn’t tell you his version but rather did so appropriately via the legal system?

Oh that is right. You didn’t like his conduct with the speeding fine. Guilty of that must mean guilty of assault...

At least you have explained your logic that in 2035 you will have "forgiven" Creek (maybe you can change from Koberulz to Creekrulz) if Mitch has a daughter and coaches her basketball team. That makes so much sense. Here I was incorrectly thinking you were a hypocrite this entire time.

I guess you were innocent until proven guilty all along.

Yes, Kobe. I agree with you.

There is no publicly available evidence in support of Creek's innocence.

Well...err...apart from the articles that state that all the charges were withdrawn thus meaning that Creek continues to be innocent of any crimes ... well ... err ... apart from those pesky speeding fines.

I appreciate from your earlier post that you require another 14 years before you will accept any of the above.

Bring on 2035.

koberulz: "Is it enough to actually convict? No. But all available evidence leans exactly one way."
"The only evidence we have, at this point, supports a finding of guilt."

Earlier

koberulz: "Is it possible Creek didn't do it? Sure. Is it likely? Fuck no."

If "all available evidence leans exactly one way", why do you think it's possible Creek didn't do as alleged? Does this imply that you actually do understand that there may be other evidence, which you haven't been exposed to, that may support Creek? Or that there is a possibility that the evidence that you have been exposed to may not represent the truth?

Or is it just easier to ignore all that uncertainty and jump on the train of your perceived highest likelihood? Less complicated. Easier to push an agenda. Again and again.

" They have decided there is insufficient evidence to continue. "

As far as I am aware, the prosecution has said no such thing and this is purely speculation on your part.

The amount of obfuscation in this thread from LV is off the charts.

Kobeisafool will always be right because he has told us he is always right. I wish there was an ignore button on here.

Don't read his posts then.

"The victim supplied compelling and consistent testimony"

We haven't heard the victim's testimony. How can we judge if it is compelling and consistent?

The irony of a guy with the name koberulz saying someone is guilty when a case was thrown out.
Maybe research the name in your own name that you seem to be a big fan of!

Moron

" But all available evidence leans exactly one way."

You simply do not know that! You anyone here has not seen the evidence. All you have seen as reporting of allegations.

P*iss off Musk. That's such a cop out. The percentage for people lying about this kind of thing is INCREDIBLY low. There's a lot of smoke around this and further information from those in the circle, about Creek and his questionable behaviour, who he hangs out with etc. Typical male athlete who believes his own hype and thinks he's above it all.

" There's a lot of smoke around this and further information from those in the circle, about Creek and his questionable behaviour, who he hangs out with etc."

That may all be true. Creek may not be a good person. We may not like how he hangs around with and what they get up to. But none of that matters as to whether, in fact, Creek did the things that were alleged.

Koberulz:
Kobe Bryant.
Rapist or no?

The argument continually being made about koberulz' username is, from a legal perspective, extremely retarded.

Awaiting your answer KR...
Kobe?

Fuck off with your idiotic "gotcha" argument. It's not proving anything.

248 and 261 - it's not a legal argument. It’s not a gotcha argument.

His username is hypocritical. Change the username or change the guilty until proven innocent rubbish.

It’s like a vegan trying to force the virtues of being a vegan upon others but with the username BigMacRulz or a profile picture of Ronald McDonald.

In this case the picture of Ronald McDonald would be appropriate for Koberulz.

"His username is hypocritical."

Yeah we get it. You think he can't have an opinion on Creek while he has a username like his. Who gives a fuck? You're not making any sort of point that you think you are.

If he had been defending Bryant during his pre-trial issues but then changed his tune for Creek, then you could say he's a hypocrite. But it's a fucking username which he's used since he was a kid so it doesn't matter one iota.

Ok cool.

Koberulz defends rapists right to rape if they can basketball really good and are his idol.

I don't believe he's once commented on Bryant's guilt or innocence. It's a username!!

"All you have seen as reporting of allegations"

Haven't you heard? All you need is an allegation. It's the woke way. 100% believe the accuser (if accuser is the right gender/race/status identity), the accusation signifies the accused must be guilty, no benefit of the doubt for the accused, trial by social media, public shaming, offer mostly vague generalized accusations, group the accused together with all other accused regardless of severity, advocate for cancelation. All good woke warriors should also regularly sprinkle in generalized statements to push for woke activism, usually arguing via identity politics. Ignore the legal system. Who needs that? It just represents the patriarchy. With such a simplistic worldview, don't be surprised that these woke activists show hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is part of being woke. Who needs a court of law when the woke can decide for all of us? Thank you for your service, woke. You may now go back to your social media echo chambers, which is apparently "real life" to them.

Or he certainly hasn't said he was within his rights to rape. Not only is your gotcha argument pathetic, you're now bringing in a straw man to show just how fucking stupid you are

Charges dropped.
The end.

"100% believe the accuser"

No one is saying they 100% believe the accuser but the accuser deserves to be taken seriously without suggesting that she is after a payday, or that we hope Creek is found "legally innocent" so we can get an all Melbourne GF series.

"But it's a fucking username which he's used since he was a kid so it doesn't matter one iota."

It does matter. People change all the time. If my username has been weinsteinrulz because I loved miramax movies then I would have taken the 60 seconds needed to change my username once certain unpleasant new information came to light. Having an opinion at some point in the past does not mean the opinion can't be changed. It is called growth and improvement.

So if he changes his username, then you'll shut up?

"No one is saying they 100% believe the accuser"

Koberulz said all evidence points to guilt, based on the accusation.

Koberulz believes Creek is guilty.
He is just a nerd who will keep replying if you bait him.
Simply ignore him.

Sorry, I should have said not every accusation should be 100% believed but they should be taken seriously. For years we heard excuses for alleged assault victims, like she shouldnt have been wearing that outfit, or in the case of LV, there was potentially provocation.

"I don't know how I could possibly be any clearer."

Let me be clear: you do not know what the evidence is and you do not know which way the evidence leans because you haven't seen it. All you know is that there are allegations and the Police initially pressed charges. From that alone, you have concluded that Creek is likely guilty. This is a fallacy.

Charges were dropped.
Creek is a free man :)

"I said "all available evidence". Please learn to read."

Please link us to the available evidence you have adduced because, as far as I can see, there is no publicly available evidence.

Huh? The evidence is that a woman suffered severe facial injuries and that the police investigated the incident and laid charges. That is the availabile evidence.

Koberulz obviously doesn't like Creek lol.

#305 and with such obvious evidence (severe injuries that required hospitalisation) the charges have been dropped. No case to answer, no evidence produced in court, no court hearing, no charges to defend. I suggest everyone moves on.

"I didn't say "all evidence", I said "all available evidence". Please learn to read"

"Based on the accusation", which refers to the available evidence. Please learn to read.

"Huh? The evidence is that a woman suffered severe facial injuries and that the police investigated the incident and laid charges. That is the available evidence"

This is not evidence.

Evidence would be, for example, pictures of the facial injuries. Evidence would be testimony of a first responder to the scene about the victim's condition. Supporting evidence would then be medical testimony that the victim's injuries were consistent with assault.

Ideally, there would be evidence showing that Creek caused the injuries. In the absence of such evidence, there should at least be something showing that Creek was with the victim at the time the injuries happened. As it stands, there is nothing publicly available for us to conclude that Creek caused the injuries suffered by the victim or that the injuries were caused by assault.

Evidence would be a statutory declaration of the complainant's account of the events. Evidence would be witnesses' statutory declarations. Creek's version of events and his defence's story could then be used to compare who we think may be telling the truth. There is no publicly available record of either side's story so it is not possible to conclude on who is likely telling the truth or not.

There has been some comment that Creek disregards the law and may not be of great character. But there has been no evidence that Creek has a propensity to be violent towards women. For example, there has been no evidence of previous convictions of a similar nature. Furthermore, there has been no reference of previous dishonesty that suggests that Creek's veracity is questionable and that he is lying about what happened. In the same way, there is no publicly available evidence that the complainant has reason to lie and inferences about her motivations are also improper.

I appreciate this is a high bar for complainants and may deter some complainants where there has been wrongdoing. But this bar can be cleared. The recent case of Jarryd Hayne demonstrates that the Police and the prosecution can successfully obtain convictions. And it does not follow that just because the prosecution did not go ahead, that Creek is guilty. We simply do not know. So, please do not treat this as a Creek is innocent!!!!1111!! I am just stating the facts: there is no evidence publicly available for us to comment on Creek's guilt.

As usual, koberulz started this discussion from a defensible position and has descended into an indefensible one by saying that Creek is likely guilty while not proffering any evidence to support that assertion. This happens on hoops all the time. He was right, then he was wrong, and now he sure as hell won't backtrack. He will dig in and sit at his keyboard responding to every comment. He could save everyone time by just stating that he went too far (he won't). In the meantime, I hope that koberulz is not on a jury any time soon because the defendant would have no chance at a fair trial.

#335 thank you, at last some reality to the subject.

No, I haven't. But it’s a common thing in Straya. And I don’t believe Creek was convicted on that either. If we want to be technical, his Facebook post itself was not a crime. But either way, it’s chalk and cheese to the current allegations as there is a wide gap between traffic offences and assault. There was a woman in Perth who did similar shortly after, if she alleged rape would we discount her allegations because she tried to avoid demerit points?

" Which is more likely: that a woman falsely accused her (ex?) partner of assaulting her, or that a man assaulted his (ex?) partner and then fought the charges? One of those things, absent any specific facts, is significantly more likely than the other. The only specific facts we have here are documented injuries to the victim, which does not sway me towards Creek's side of the story in the slightest."

It's not about what’s more likely. It’s about what happened in this case between these parties. And there are other facts: the prosecution has dropped the case and the witness is disappointed they’ve done so. Why would the prosecution drop the case if it was more likely her story was true? On your balance of probabilities exercise, there would be a reasonable cause of action for the prosecution to try test in Court. If Creek was not guilty or guilty, that would be for the jury. But the prosecution did not even bother to test it even though it appears the victim has maintained their complaint and wants to see the process through. Why would the prosecution do that? Maybe Creek’s guilt is not as clear as you are asserting?

Except it has been proven to happen often enough where high profile athletes/ movie stars and so on are placed in positions of a lot to lose even with the mentioning of such things.

Creek has been embarrassed and lost sponsorship and potentially an Olympics spot because of one persons story. A story that has been shown to not be able to be proved up.

I haven't seen any news reports saying the women required hospitalisation and a quick search doesn't show any google results of that either. Seems people posting this in this thread have taken it upon themselves to embellish.

Zodiac, please note I mentioned veracity. This is an evidence law concept. The demerits fiasco would likely be inadmissible as evidence. What I was meant was a dishonesty conviction or a history of having lied before the courts in another matter. I should have been clearer. Sorry.

As above, I've seen nothing of hospital reports, it’s easy to say that she had injuries but where is the evidence.

As stated, no one knows what went on, it’s all conjecture. What we know was Creek was put to a committal hearing and it was thrown out.

End of story.

" Has anyone noticed this isn't a court?"

No, Hoops isn't a court. But that doesn’t mean you can or should say that Creek is likely a guilty perpetrator of domestic violence and sexual assault.

KR is 100% on the public teet


Fkin loser

Koberulz is sad that the criminal prosecutor made him look like a judgmental idiot.

You have donuts. As has been pointed out over and over again it is impossible to take any of your arguments on this topic seriously whilst you use your username.

What do you even mean when you say "this isn't a court"? Are you saying that little things such as the rule of law and rules of evidence shouldn’t apply when deciding if someone is a criminal and publicly sharing your sentiments on the matter online?

What if someone incorrectly assumed from what you posted about injuries that you specifically knew what injuries were allegedly suffered when you don’t. Can’t you see how dangerous that is to someone’s reputation? If you did have inside knowledge then perhaps you could argue you are trying to do others a favour but you don’t.

Details matter. If I allege Koberulz hit someone in the head with a sock causing no injury whatsoever it evokes completely different emotions than if he fractured someone’s skull and left them in an induced coma from a hammer attack. Before you misconstrue what I’m saying, both are wrong but don’t pretend there is no difference. Any form of violence and in particular violence against women (even the sock attack example) are reprehensible. However, rules of evidence matter and the rule of law matter.

When you resort to “demerit point fiasco” as the rebuttal to a well written post at 335 then you know you have lost.

Maybe the criminal prosecutor should have used that Gotcha argument and proceeded to Trial. “Your honour, the accused previously dishonestly asked someone to take his demerit points”. If only Koberulz was available to assist the prosecutor. Between the demerit point argument and all the evidence he possesses then a conviction would clearly have followed.

Get over the username it holds zero merit

Has huge merit. Discredits every post with hypocrisy.

No it doesn't at all

We need a woke update. Should we that take issue with continuing the use of names that were named after now controversial historical figures, or not? It might say something about hypocrisy in this thread.

#385 it actually doesn't.

OJSimpsonRulz

"Why is SEM not starting Creek?"

Team balance is better with him off the bench?

Here's an idea for those that hate KR. Just stop replying to the idiot. It's obvious he won't stop and feeds on thinking he's the smartest guy around. So no matter what bullshit he talks, ignore it. As in totally, don't give him the satisfaction no matter what written crap he tries to stir us up with.

" As in totally, don't give him the satisfaction"

I don't think he’s getting any satisfaction. He regularly sounds frustrated. His poor language and name calling suggest he can’t keep his cool. Perhaps an alternative to what you’ve put forward is to troll him more until he spontaneously combusts?

#428 just suggested a way to ignore him while being completely engrossed with his posts. Good job!

Tbh KR makes this forum site look bad...

Koberulz - Creek coming off the bench is more evidence he is guilty.

Kobe never came off the bench. Definitely innocent.

What happens in Colorado stays in Colorado.

Wow, thats the shittest take of this whole situation.

Charges against Mitch Creek have been dropped.

Any proof he runs a uni faculty?
Also he is welcome to buy a one way ticket out of WA.

"Has anyone noticed this isn't a court?"
Anyone notice no one cares what Kobeisafool posts?

Creek is a piece of shit.

Why?

You should say it to his face.

I think Mitch Creek is a good bloke.

The charges have been dropped.

The charges got dropped...just like she did after a right hook in the chops.

Lack of judgement from Isaac to allow this nonsense to continue

How do you know it was a right hook. I think you're trolling.
Creek is a free man and a great player for SEM.

Update Creek haters.
Charges still dropped.