Poker

[Harry Lime]

There is no physical evidence, it is all circumstantial. Trying to explain betting patterns and other similar activities to a judge probably wouldn't be that successful. The defense would just have to say, 'he was lucky!'.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

I’ll have to watch the video but can you please clarify the bolded? It seems contradictory as if the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt that should be enough to convict. Or are you saying he should have been convicted but the judge/jury didn’t have enough understanding of poker to remove this doubt?

Beyond reasonable doubt if you know poker really well. Not enough to be convicted by a lay judge and/or jury.