Well I'm neither a lawyer nor a statistician, but since the standard we're dealing with is "a preponderance of the evidence", I'm going to say the benchmark is somewhere between those two numbers.

I suspect a criminal case will be made more by following a money trail between conspirators than by poker play.

Wait until you've done jury duty.

It's a **** load worse than you think it is. The idea that I would ever be in a situation where proving my innocence would depend on the random thoughts of 12 random people (fifteen in my country, Scotland) scares the **** out of me.

A jury is better than a judge, because judges will more likely follow direction from above and are more easily pressured and bribed. Until 100 years or so ago juries in Britain were mostly tradesmen. In much of the US south until about 50 years ago, juries were picked by jury commissions. Of course they picked white jurors, but also mostly middle class. In some cases they picked jurors likely to convict anyone. However, the older approaches had some advantage over random people. Most cases don't actually go to jury trial but are settled or plea bargained.

Before the trial the plaintiff's lawyers will question Postle and JFK. Postle is going to have to answer questions about how he played the most suspicious hands, why he was staring at his phone, why he quit playing when the stream went off etc. Even if the jury wouldn't totally understand the poker, Postle may not do well under interrogation explaining some ludicrous plays.

If the defense introduces expert witness poker players or mathematicians justifying Postle's play and win rate, they can probably be made fools of under cross examination. Whereas Veronica etc. will probably be able to withstand cross examination well.

Presumably, the plaintiff will have a lot of technical evidence we don't know about, but even with out it, they would have a good chance if the case goes to jury.

Luckily in Scotland - as in most western countries - there is no obligation for you to prove your innocence. The prosecution has to prove your guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not in most western countries. Under English Common Law (and Scottish). This is used in former British colonies, including the US and India. In continental Europe, law is mostly derived from Roman and / or Napoleonic law, and is trial without jury and guilty until proven innocent.

In the US, most cases are plea bargained for lighter sentences. About 90% of defendants in the US plead guilty versus 67% in the UK.

that's not how it works in practice. almost all cases end in a plea because jury trials don't go well if you can't prove your innocence.

I thought the person on trial didn't have to testify, whether in the courtroom or anytime before court? Couldn't Postle just refuse to answer questions from plaintiff's lawyers?

I am not a lawyer, but I believe he can refuse on the grounds that it might incriminate him in a criminal case. However, the jury could draw an inference of guilt from it. It wouldn't look good at all if he refused to answer on those grounds. If he wasn't cheating would he take the Fifth?

Hello. I am not a lawyer. I have never studied law. In fact, I have never even been in a court room. However, I am not going to let what is basically my total ignorance of everything legal stop me from posting my opinion about how I think the intricate legal details of this case will play out. Then, since I am just as uninformed about other legal systems, I might compare and contrast what I think the differences might be if this case was filed somewhere else.

Basically, I think some expert cross-examination from one of the attorneys will cause a witness to break down and then tearfully say, "All right. All right. I admit it. It was James Wilcomby all the time!" and then point at one of the defendants and shriek, "I told you we couldn't get away with it!" as the Judge pounds his gavel repeatedly and the witness falls to the floor in tears and is led away by the bailiff.

Then once the commotion has calmed down, James Wilcomby will rise, despite the Judges admonishments and gavel rapping to sit down, reach up and pull off the clever mask and disguise he had been wearing and reveal he is actually Old Man Smith muttering, "I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those meddlin' kids!" as the Judge orders the court room to be cleared.

The jury will protest the lack of single malt whiskey in the deliberation room and everyone involved will get a coupon good for a free buffet at Stones Gambling Hall.

At least, that is my opinion. As I said, I'm not a lawyer.

Nothing shakes your faith in the justice system as much as sitting on a jury does imo. I've done my spell on jury duty and the stuff I heard was incredible. There should at least be some sort of IQ test beforehand.

I had law courses in college and studied some law for a professional exam. I know something about it. A lawyer would explain it in a more detailed way.

It doesn't mean he would break down and say I did it. However, considering how Postle came off in the soft interview, he might not do well being grilled by a lawyer. There are a lot of suspicious things he did as well as his play which he would have difficulty explaining. If he refuses to answer the questions on the grounds it might incriminate him criminally, that also would not look good in a civil case.

If someone who is a lawyer wants to contradict that, I would be interested. I can't respond otherwise to a ridiculous rant by someone probably not old enough to play legally.

Yeah the idea of jury trials seem crazy to me. I'd want a jury of educated lawyers/scientists/judges. There should be some rigorous qualification. Not a panel of the avg joe. The avg joe is ******ed.

"I don't know"

"I don't remember"

"I don't understand the question"

If he sticks generally with those, I think there is a fair chance he can skate.

I'm being a bit simplistic here but I think a big part of this is Justin. If they can corner him I think they will get somewhere.

Mike while aloof seems like he'll be ok on the stand and won't hurt himself too much.

Having once been suckered into enrolling in a mail order course on Real Estate Investment and Flipping Houses, I will now double down and hurl personal insults at anyone who dares question my supposed acumen in the legal realm.

Obviously, no one will have to give testimony based on one of the penumbral rights referred to in the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Not going to answer the guy rightly named with the IQ of 4.

So why did you call two allins with 54o? I don't know.

Why did you call the flop with JT and fold when a jack hit and it just happens your opponent had a set? I don't remember.

Why were you always staring at your phone? I don't understand the question.

Why did you have your phone above your crotch? I don't know.

Why did you stop play when the live stream ended? I don't remember.

Since you were winning so much, why didn't you move up to much higher stakes? I don't understand the question.

Presumably a good courtroom lawyer can ask follow up questions, rephrase questions he doesn't understand, etc.

I don't know if that is an endorsement of my post but If I were Mike,
I wouldn't say anything but.

add in a few

"I ran well!"

"I hit a rough patch" *sads*

"when do we break for lunch?"

He's given zero F's from the beginning...

It WORKS for him somehow.

That said I don't like him and he has really put a black eye on the game I love.

In theory, if you're accused by the government of a crime, whether you did it or not, do you want employees of the government to decide on your guilt? Those highly educated people would have to be paid by someone. I'd like to see some plan to eliminate the conflict of interest.

I was on jury duty twice, and we always hear from the lawyers and judges that in our system we would rather see ten guilty people go free than convict one innocent person. The problem is, in practice, that the average person doesn't see it this way at all. They would much rather put an innocent person in jail than have ten criminals free to potentially victimize them as well. Many will gladly admit this.

Sure, you can try not answering the questions or take the Fifth. However, it isn't going to look good. The plaintiff's attorney will keep pressing him when he tries to give a run around. What would you think if you were on the jury when a witness acted that way?

Lawyers need to be excluded. All you need to do is look at politics to see why. They are the majority of politicians and they are historically as ******ed as Forrest Gump when it comes to science.


It's kind of funny, I was on 1 jury ever and it was for a murder trial. Dude literally had a circle of variables pointing at him saying he did it. I literally had to hold their hands and walk them thru it to see how clear the picture was of a crack dealer killing his client.... in the crack dealers previous residence, trying to recruit other people to move the body later, after rolling around in the victims car for more than a month lol. Imagine being a 24 year old having to convince a bunch of middle aged people that, yes dude did kill the victim.

That the prosecution needs to come up with some solid ass evidence because this guy just won't incriminate himself...

Are we talking about a civil case or a criminal case? I don't know if there will be a criminal case. In a civil case, it is preponderance of evidence. If Postle acts like that it won't look good. Even in a criminal case, the jury would have to think he wouldn't be acting like that if he wasn't guilty. Of course, there will be other evidence.

Why is it the preponderance of evidence above a criminal case? I think in both situations you are to say nothing or as close to.

I know you can plead the fifth so this sort of defense to a line of questioning does not apply in a criminal case.

In a civil case however I am not required to remember things at anyone's command. Bring the evidence or let me step down.

I don't know what you are talking about. In a civil case, the plaintiff doesn't have to prove it. The evidence just has to be strongest for the plaintiff. If you are going to respond "I don't remember" or whatever or take the Fifth in a criminal case, you are better off pleading guilty.

So you are on a jury in a civil case and Veronica and so on are convincing and can't be cracked under cross examination, whereas Postle tries to dodge all questions and say nothing. Who would you believe? If you were Stones would you want to settle or have that kind of public spectacle?

If I know poker Veronica.

If I was an average person, I would want some solid proof that gambling can't produce that kind of run.

I mean, someone wins the lottery every now and again.

In order to do that you need to flip heads 25 times in a row, stand on the tallest building in your city and throw a coin off the roof and hit someone in the head YOU KNOW.

Runs like this are possible to the general public.

They continue to play the lottery.