Don't you think the plaintiff's attorneys and any possible prosecutors are going to obtain additional evidence? What about the ceiling cameras? What about Postle's phone? Isn't it possible to obtain additional evidence on how this was accomplished technically?

12worms or whatever do you have a theory other than postle was cheating and he has nonhuman soul reading ability? I mean you really think he has like Phil Hellmuth/Ivey on top of their game to the power of ten people reading ability for 20 poker sessions is a row? Is that the conclusion you've drawn?

No, statistics is just the win rate argument. Always making the right play only when the phone is in his crotch is not statistics.

You guys are looking at each piece of evidence as if they individually have to be proof of him cheating. It's when you link the evidence and show that when the phone was in his crotch and he is clearly looking at it during hands where he makes bets, calls, and folds that he doesn't make when the phone is not there (in fact, his whole style of play changes) that it is the smoking gun.

Yes, alone, a phone in his crotch doesn't mean he's cheating. That he makes plays that seem impossible could just be flukes. But when you combine the two and show that he NEVER makes those incredible plays when his phone is not in his crotch, and when it is there he always makes plays that even those commenting on the stream are in amazement how he could know -- that's where it become undeniable unless you are just refusing to see it. And you don't need to know anything about poker to have that explained such that it becomes clear.

Take all your evidence and present it to 12 people who

a. Could not get out of jury duty. Or actually crave to be on jury duty
b. Probably don't play Holdem
c. If they do play Holdem, they think GTO is a kind of car
d. Recall cases when a player won 13 hands in a row on a blackjack table. Or some other "lucky streak"

Why does everyone think the only evidence is what we have seen so far? For example, you should get a lot from Postle's phone. It probably doesn't exist anymore, but that also doesn't look good for the defense.

"Judges convicted about 55 percent of the time, while the jury conviction rate was a whopping 84 percent. The results surprised almost all the lawyers — defense attorneys as well as prosecutors — Leipold interviewed for the study.Aug 30, 2006 Why to Fear a Jury of Your Peers - TIME"

Someone who craves to be on jury duty is likely craving to convict. Jurors generally trust the prosecution and don't trust defense attorneys, and equate "defendant" with "criminal". Those who just want to get it over with will go along with whatever gets them out of deliberation faster.

JFK waived service of the summons therefore he has until January 8, 2019 to respond to the Complaint. It doesn't appear he has legal representation as of yet. **Redacted Personal Info**

I've read every single post in this thread, and I don't recall anyone ever saying that the only evidence that exists is what has been made public so far.

The lawyers are not going to present a case mainly based on how Postle played the poker hands and looked at his cell phone. They will present hard evidence about how the cheating was conducted.

All the evidence may or may not be out.



However I think all hard evidence (phone etc.) has been destroyed.

If he caught the RFID transmission, this case is especially fuxxed (Justin not involved).

If Justin was involved then there are many more avenues that may yield fruit.

Justin's waiving and possibly waiting for last minute points to guilt to me. I have been served and right at that moment I was like "where do I sign?" (let's fight/I have nothing to hide).

That's evidence also if the phone has been destroyed.What about the ceiling cameras pictures. Have they also been destroyed? If evidence like that was destroyed, it doesn't help the defense case.

If Stones is at all involved/liable this evidence may be hard to acquire.

Ceiling cameras are not hard evidence.

We had good views from the stream, most notably the blue glow onto the sunglasses.

But you know what that is?

A blue glow onto sunglasses...

How long do we think the security recordings are kept?

30 days?

When there's a trial for a murder that had no witnesses, should the 12 jurors be expected to have expert knowledge of forensic pathology to find the defendant guilty?

The plaintiffs' council will no doubt be calling expert witnesses that can testify to the astronomical unlikelihood of Postle's win rate, the way he played certain hands vs.the way someone with knowledge of everyone's hole cards would play them, etc.

I'd be looking at phone records, especially on the days the headphones were suspected. The phone company will have records of who was called, as well as the time, duration, and location. If Mike and an accomplice used burner phones, you might be able to establish something like this: A call was made from one pre-paid phone to another, both within the Stones casino, at the beginning of a live stream. The duration was for the entire time of the streamed session. That would be very suspicious.

On days of crotch peeking, if it was done by viewing the blue-screen live stream over wifi, you're probably not getting much in the way of records. But if it were done via text, you'd have constant texts from one burner to another, coinciding with each dealt hand on the stream, and few or no replies going the other way. Also very suspicious.

And yes, either of these things by itself proves nothing, but it adds weight to all the other evidence. To me the most damning is the behavior difference between the god-mode and non-god-mode sessions. Phone hidden vs. on the table. Always looking at the phone during hands vs. only looking while not involved. Happy-go lucky attitude vs. agonizing over tough decisions.

Which has yet to be presented in this thread.

Why would the plaintiffs' lawyers present their evidence in this thread? It will come out in discovery and so on.

Why must they have?

Quite possibly, yes.

Um...because, court case?

Your post seems to indicate that you think this should all be over soon because...it should. Here's a good post to help with perspective:

So yeah, don't be surprised if you don't hear anything for months. Several months. Legal proceedings are slow. Sometimes for obvious reasons, and sometimes for what seem to be mysterious ones, but regardless...they're slow.

What do you think the benchmark will be for a win rate indicative of cheating? 1 in 100, 1 in a million?

I think it's a mistake to assume that device CTO used was his own phone. More likely was he used a phone that wasn't actually his, or one which belonged to one of the conspirators and/or was linked to the wifi/card reader info.

There should be a considerable amount of evidence with the Casino's IT Systems.. who had access, how it was setup, the logs of each system/program, wifi logs, etc. There's identifiers for phones/connections on the backend of wifi systems that I'm sure can be traced even without the physical phone.

The point being that if the phone wasn't his... There's nothing there to connect his phone to any data log footprint. Besides of coarse, the videos of Mikes CTO play and that he was indeed using a device. One interview with Veronica noted that other folks had live shots of play; most likely in my mind is that Mike was given access to one of those devices.

Lol, spot on. This is why jury’s don’t work imo

I can only imagine how many potential cheaters are waiting for the outcome of this case to see if it's really worth cheating in poker or not.

They are going not going to present a case mainly based on betting patterns and win rates. They are going to have testimony of people who saw stuff with the cheating and technical evidence about the cheating. They may also call Postle and JFK, which you can do in a civil case, and question them. Postle didn't do that well in a friendly interview, so he may have a hard time explaining things. It is preponderance of evidence in a civil case, and the defense won't be able to present that much solid assuming they were cheating. We may not know that much about the case for over a year.

Plus Stones doesn't want the expense,risk of a big awards, and bad publicity of a trial, so they should settle.