Yes, with fabulous evidence like

1. Postle took all our money gambling
2. Postle looked at his phone
3. Postle wore a hat

I can't imagine why this hasn't gone anywhere

Without someone willing to testify to their involvement, or some sort of evidence of how he cheated, nothing will happen.

You can hire pros as expert witnesses. They testify. Postle loses. Done and done. If someone wanted to continue the suit they could move to Nevada and sue in federal court , or is that not a thing

Been tried.
Judge tossed it out saying it belongs in California.

I thought they tried to move the venue to Nevada state court, not federal court

It'd be a pretty unfair edge to be able to just hop to whatever state has laws in favor of getting the verdict you want despite the alleged crime never happening in that state.

This is civil court not criminal.

Because you’re thinking of criminal trials. The difference between civil and criminal is “beyond reasonable doubt” vs “beyond a preponderance of evidence.” Furthermore the idea that a math sim is all the evidence there is seems laughable when you look at the crazy hand histories. That alone may be enough to convince a jury.

Well, we will never know.

Did she say they overcharged Postle by mistake, or is she saying it was on purpose? Seems like an odd thing to miss.

So if you say "well, I think it's more likely than not but maybe only 50.8% chance not 51%" that's a "no"? What sense does it make to use a number like 51% instead of >50%?

Show us one case.

The reason is that they believe the winner is taking advantage of the loser.

Not the loser's knowledge; the winner is taking advantage of the loser's weakness (in other words, his humanity).

More people think the gambling is just wrong in principle even if played 'honestly'.

.
f it

The problem in America is that we are so quick to use the court system to solve our problems, and cages to store our bad people.

The solution here was for the casino to publicly do an investigation and reveal the outcome. They have all the wireless data. Surely they had time to save records that would have easily demonstrated whether the communication that is thought to have occured, did.

Of course, Postle could have go a long way towards establishing his innocence in the same manner. Postle needs some better friends than Mike the Mouth.

Scott Peterson, convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence.

What are you talking about????

They literally asked the casino to investigate and they said they did. What more did you want? Citizens arrest the Poker manager? It's like you don't even know a thing about what happened.

Being quite the true-crime nerd I'd agree with the statement that the US convicts killers on much less evidence than the Postle case - but then again, that is mostly due to MY understanding of the Postle case and ME thinking it's 100% slamdunk shut clear as day nail in coffin case.

So that discussion really just reverts back to Postle (and what one thinks of that case) entirely and has nothing to do with murder conviction requirements at all.

There was direct evidence, including dna of the victim on his boat. The case was a circumstantial case, but there was direct evidence.

In Postle's case, the judge who dismissed the case did say that the evidence alleged would likely NOT meet the federal rules of evidence guidelines.

I tried cracking fed rules and, yeah, I'm so not caring about Postle. I hope the guy is innocent but frankly I seem more invested in giving him a fair shake than he is in himself.

What I want is evidence of these phones talking to each other through the wifi. Or at the very least, you can access the carrier from that table with all those electronics. Are you really telling me they can't find those logs? Has anyone seen the logs? What did the lawyers see? Why won't they tell us what they saw? The lawyers repping the people accusing Postle haven't been forthcoming with any incriminating evidence and I suspect they would not tell us if they saw evidence that did not show what they expected it to show.

Sorry about that multi thing. I get carried away, or should be.

Okay, now I definitely don't understand what you're ranting about. You think there was discovery and they had full access to all of Postle's phone data?

No I think they had full access to the wifi records. You think Postle had service? Okay show it. Otherwise he had to use wifi. Is the wifi clean or dirty? We should be able to know if there is any evidence of postle's phone connecting and dl'ing jpgs ... would not the logs of the wifi at the poker room show this? Espcially since any conspirator would likely be on wifi. I just want to know if they looked at the logs and if not, why not? Why do we not know this if the point is to know the truth?

But like I said, Postle ain't doing anything either. So f it.

What do you mean "Postle ain't doing anything either?" He's not guilty so he ain't got to do ****. He's just a 1/3 poker pro that has a family to support, so he can't afford a long drawn out civil suit just to try to clear his name.

That is not true. The Judge said that EVEN if the allegations are true, California law prohibits judicial intervention in gambling disputes. Therefore, there is no case.

Plaintiff's claims were "not cognizable under California law because California public policy bars judicial intervention in gambling disputesCalifornia public policy bars judicial intervention in gambling disputes." - Judge

They failed to state a valid claim that Postle broke the law.

And also the Plaintiffs ultimately dismissed the case, not the judge. They were permitted to file an amended complaint on some claims to try to state a valid claim.

Why do you say they had postle's phone records? There is no evidence of that. You are literally making up more evidence to defend Postle than actually exists.

Everyone told you above why the case did not continue.

The judge said lawsuit could not continue as a gambling dispute under California law, so either amend complaint to state a valid claim or case will be over.

Instead, Plaintiffs SETTLED with Stones and Plaintiffs dismissed the case.

The case was dismissed BEFORE discovery phase. BEFORE you can subpoena phone records.

There is a right to privacy in California. You can't just demand strangers phone records. What do you think Plaintiffs did, call up Postle's AT&T and ask to see his text messages?

Stone offered some sort of evience Stones was not involved, Stones involvement would be hard to prove and since Stones was the deep pockets (and Stones insurance would not usually be liable for fraudulent acts like this), Stones paid nuisance value to get out and Plaintiffs accepted the offer.

Maybe, just maybe, if Mike Postle had such great evidence that he was not cheating he could have used it to clear his name and/or to defend himself in his defamation case ?!

I guess when you are talking to a jury its easier to say 51 49 rather than 50.00001 , but the standard is greater than 50%.

Obviously these numbers can mean different things to different people

Dream Crusher you're just trolling in this thread right?

Also, if Postle was innocent he would have gone full transparency, offered forensic examination of his phone to actual third parties/insisted stones let actual third party experts examine the electronic stream/wifi data etc and gone out of his way to prove he didn't cheat

Also if he was actually 'that talented' surely he would be crushing live poker with no phone or stream somewhere right now if he's alleging he's broke etc.

Anyone who doesn't think there's over a 99.9% chance Postle cheated is simply bad at math and logic and it's scary that people like that could serve on a jury if there are people who post on a poker forum who don't at the very least think it's 51% that he cheated (at the very minimum it's way, way over 99.9%)

dc's fave pastime is trolling