To be fair, I don't think he would disagree with any of this. Hell, his very post cites it as an example of different types of evidence. The point is that it would make for a tough sell in court because the mere act of looking at the phone (even if it's oddly buried in his lap) could be defended.

In fact, I think Postle said later something about getting NSFW texts, and not wanting others to see it. Not that I buy that explanation, mind you, as you'd think it would have come up a year before. (Plus it's odd that he happened to only look at these in the middle of hands, rather than between them.)

Of course, we likely won't know how strong the phone is as evidence because it will be tough to ever have this tried in a court room.

From Wikipedia:

show me evidence but not the evidence I don't like

When people see dna evidence in court, do they go, oh, that's not real evidence? DNA isn't 100% proof. It's 99.99999999% proof. The chance of dna being wrong is more likely than the chance postle gets that winrate legitimately. Yeah, maybe he just won 500 main events in a row making the dumbest plays known to man while also staring at his hidden phone the whole time while also running a business that handles hole card technology, while also making plays that make 0 sense outside of knowing the opponents exact cards and being correct 100% with stupid plays. Probably not though. The only way you'd think he might be innocent is if you don't understand how math works. You're making the same case as "well DNA isn't 100% conclusive, so it's 50/50 whether that DNA is true evidence or not, so there's NO REAL EVIDENCE."

The evidence is the winrate. The circumstantial supporting factors (always looking at phone, run a hole card business, constantly makes plays that make 0 sense except if you know opponents exact hole cards and always correct about it, wins at absurd rates only on this show but doesn't play in bigger games off camera, etc) make it that much more likely he cheated. It's exactly like how a common case is dna evidence (statistically absurdly high probability of guilt) + spotted at scene of the crime (circumstantial supporting fact) + owns the murder weapon (circumstantial). The only problem is people don't know how math works, so it could potentially be tough to convince a jury, but the foundations are the same as any other case.

Yes, extremely strong circumstantial evidence, but unlikely to go the trial or pretrial in any civil or criminal case.

That is why the defendants in Postle's suit weren't served. All these lawyers were posting that they would need to settle with Postle because it was too expensive to go to trial. However, you don't need to be an expert to know that Postle's suit wasn't going anywhere.

I don't think any lawyers I recall reading posts from in this thread would have advised settlement without their clients having been served.

As far as I've seen, the one defendant party that has acted through counsel in the Postle suit took an opposite, aggressive tact, filing an Anti-SLAPP effort to dismiss and get paid by Postle.

Let us know if you hear anything about the Anti-SLAPP effort outcome.

Keep in mind, by and large the putative defendants in the case brought by Postile are media types and NOT the player plaintiffs from the case brought/diimissed against Postle.

Well, that could be for a jury to decide, if the defamation suit moves forward (I don't think it ever will be scheduled, at least, not for five probably ten years).

But just because it's reasonable to assume someone committed a crime doesn't give you the right to talk about it. It's reasonable to accuse certain individuals of joining the fun on Pedo Isle but if you did so, you'd find yourself facing a potential lawsuit if the person was a public figure, and certain losing lawsuit if the person was not a public figure.

This was more than reasonable to assume. There is strong circumstantial evidence as tenx indicated. It is not just like make accusations or implications for no reason.

Exactly the point we are making. DNA by itself is not sufficient to convict someone of a crime in any situation.

Even DNA in a blood stain at a crime scene is not sufficient to convict.

You're not likely to find many sympathetic jurors for people accusing others of crimes when the police haven't even investigated a crime. Especially rich people. Sympathetic people like ourselves are unlikely to be sued because the lawyers wouldn't even get expenses covered unless you have more money than the average lurker around here.

Indeed, if the court decided postle wasn't a public figure, it's libel per se to call someone a criminal if they haven't been convicted of a crime, unless I'm understanding california law incorrectly.

There are different kinds of circumstantial evidence against Postle. It would make a decent criminal case if anyone wanted to prosecute it. That is why Postle has such a weak defamation case and his lawyers know that, which is why no one has been served.

Its a civil case! Jurors only need 51% one way, and even then can split the baby more in terms of comparing fault between defendants, parties, and cut damages.

Jurors decide all kinds of crazy cases, most more boring than poker- involving construction measurements, bodily organs, tax nonsense, chemicals, science stuff......

There are experts in statistics and math in NorCal from UC Davis, Berkeley Stanford, etc that will explain this stuff so 5th graders can understand it. And the local jury will trust a sharp, well spoken, charismatic Stanford professor like gospel over whoever Postle can get to defend his crap case with no budget.

This will not be a hard case to prove in civil court for the defendants.

So you are suggesting that this hypothetical is not defamation:

A set of facts exists where a decent criminal case can be made against and innocent person who is not a public figure.

I call the innocent person a criminal.

I think the majority wins rule helps Postle. He has to prove he isn't a criminal.

Has he ever even been investigated, never mind arrested or convicted?

Has he repeated this conduct (a 'criminal' implies an occupation as well as a legal status, does it not?)?

Is cheating the way he is accused of doing really a crime? Why don't the authorities think so?

I agree the jury will cut damages (probably to $1). He may have been defamed. Bummer.

Well, unless Postle can prove he was called a criminal, and he hasn't been convicted of or even arrested for a crime.

For many people, the idea of someone calling a private person (if postle is a private person) a criminal when they haven't been arrested is wrong, unless you're dealing with some kind of crime of violence.

I'm not even clear on why he'd lie about looking at the phone (personals? sports betting? what was it)? As though that can't be checked. If he can show he was looking at the phone for a different reason than cheating at those times, suddenly many of the accusations that he cheated are dubiousness.

You believe he'd claim to be using the phone for a reason that he couldn't back up? I mean the lawyers HAD to tell him that the records would be retrieved and if they contradicted his account, Postle could face serious trouble for perjury when as things stand, he is walking away scot free from this fiasco.

Right now the cops don't care. Submitting fraudulent legal documents is a way to change that.

So he lies?

Who called Postle a criminal? They implied he was cheating at poker.

The fact that no one has been served says something about how strong Postle's attorneys think their case is.

Didn't they quit the case?

There's no reason to serve anyone since the case is on the covid backburner. Those cases are going to be disposed of quickly when possible.

I don't think the case is weak, I don't think there are any damages going to be awarded. I don't see either side being sympathetic. Like the nfl vs usfl

There was something up with the defendants not being served. Presumably Postle's lawyers were afraid the case would be dismissed. Maybe the firm was taking it on a contingency basis mostly for publicity and didn't intend to really go ahead with the case or Stones was behind it and just wanted to quiet down the discussion of Postle's cheating etc.

I'd bet he ran outta money

Lol best episode ever... Needs more love

Okay, thanks for asking this. I was getting a tad confused at what sort of libelous/slanderous statements were out there.

I'd have to go back to confirm this, but I also recall most of the investigative content safeguarding themselves with language like "allegedly" and "suspected of."

Thread sponsored by AAA (Armchair Attorneys Anonymous)

I believe I remember reading that his lawyers had requested to be removed from being his counsel because he wasn't responding to their messages haha probably did

Assuming he put up the money and it was not contingency fee. This would be an extremely expensive case and stupid for him to file if paying for it. His lawyers should also have indicated to him it would cost well into 6 figures.

It was probably either planned as a bluff that they weren't going to serve anyone or someone decided it wasn't a good idea to continue.

The fact that it is a law firm 400 miles away with no defamation experience makes it likely it was contingency fee or they offered lower rates or something. If he was paying his own money or someone was paying it for him, why not go to a qualified law firm?

It could have been intended that they would not serve anyone and it was Postle's way of say **** you, regardless of whether Postle paid for it or the law firm. It could be that Postle paid for it himself and then realized it was too expensive and a bad idea. The law firm could have also taken it on contingency and realized from the reaction that it would be hard to get quick settlements and it might be dismissed and they might have to pay defense legal fees.

It is also possible Stones paid for it, and they wanted to shut down the discussion, but didn't want the publicity of a real lawsuit.

If there is DNA evidence that almost always means the person actually did it, which means that the other pieces to the case will generally fall into place. So this hypothetical doesn’t really make sense.

Circumstantial evidence is certainly enough to convict someone of a crime.