Quote:
Originally Posted by archii
I know Mike is cheating. It's like as close to 100% as can be.
But is there some real hard evidence? They have had a few days to get rid of all evidence other than the videos. I'm just wondering when the l lawsuits start piling is there enough to convict the guy? I mean I dont know of stream videos are enough..
Jury and judge could think there is reasonable doubt..
I think at a certain point, the line between damning circumstantial evidence, and so-called "hard" evidence is meaningless. People are convicted on strong circumstantial evidence all the time.
This is essentially the same as finding DNA at the scene. Police just find some random organic material. It doesn't "prove" the suspect was there, it only gives a 99.999999999% chance. How is this any different? The maths of this are equally undeniable (if not more so). There's no way you can understand poker well, look at this evidence, and have any doubt at all, let alone reasonable.