You're applying American criminal/civil procedure to a country having different procedures. The Koreans don't have jury trials. As such, appellate judges are free to review and overturn any part of what the lower court judge decided. Check the link I supplied earlier: "There is little difference between the appeal and trial proceedings."

Even in American jurisprudence, there are arguments as to whether meeting the burden of proof is fact (jury decision) or law (judge decision).

And magdelyn, as someone who went to law school, you should recall the first things a lawyer does in any case - figure out the law/procedures in the jurisdiction having venue. You can't even make a procedural move (like appear) until you know the jurisdiction.

On the other hand, if your argument is that Koreans are barbaric for not having an American style legal system, then I won't argue with you. I'll just roll my eyes and move on.

The burden of proof is indeed beyond a reasonable doubt. Here's a link:

http://www.scourt.go.kr/scourt_en/Proceedings/t04_02/index.html

From TFA, the accused did testify. There's a lot more to this case than the knee jerk reactions indicate.

Also, jury trials don't necessarily change the outcome. Many jurors take the burden of proof to heart, admit reasonable doubt, and regretfully let criminals walk. Plus, it only takes one juror to have reasonable doubt and hang the jury. It is actually easier to get a judge to put someone away.

It isn't that the folded jeans are more trustworthy. The burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". It appears that the folded jeans raised a reasonable doubt. Please also note that, if the accused took the stand, then the accuser and the accused gave conflicting testimony. Furthermore, the accused's plea basically says "I didn't do it". So, you have conflicting stories plus a bit of evidence supporting one side.

Just when it looks like you can string someone up on general principal, that burden of proof thing gets in the way.

Hydrogen sulfide really stinks. It must be awful waiting for a lethal concentration to build up.

Maybe locking yourself in the john with a bag of dry ice is more pleasant.

Trustworthiness and honesty should rank paramount in voters decisions. A candidate's stated position on any issue isn't worth anything if that candidate is neither trustworthy nor honest.

It is funny that the old guard dems like stephanopoulos are back to arguing "electability". That worked so well in the past. As has been pointed out here so often, GW bush has proven himself electable. As such, a potato is electable.

On the other hand, electable is a handy devise. It changes the focus from the candidate and onto the electorate. Then the smarmy and smug can talk about what the rubes and idiots in the electorate think. It is so much easier to find fault with the great unwashed than with the candidates. That's why kerry lost. The stupid electorate couldn't perceive his obvious superiority. It had nothing to do with the candidate nor the party elite who supported him.

Do they provide the level of access that McCain does?

How should the reporters act? Should they shun every candidate except for formal Q&A sessions?

Sure, it is interesting that McCain is developing a cozy relationship with some reporters. It begs a question though. What kind of relationships are hillary and Obama developing with the press? Is McCain simply playing his hand better? Are the dems kept from informal interactions with the press for some reason?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Weak arguments like this just make people look shrill. Adjust the numbers for inflation before climbing on the soap box. Unless, of course, you're trying to recruit the shrill and inane to your cause.

Here's another way to look at it...

The Louisiana purchase cost about $23 million for 828,000 square miles. The linked article said something about $500 billion in defense spending. That is 20,000 times $23 million. The surface of the earth, including the oceans, is about 200 million square miles. About that a third of that is land.

So, absent inflation adjustments and reality, that 500 billion is 30,000 percent the amount needed to buy the earth's land surface!

Just because there is shale in a geologic formation doesn't mean that production requires "pulverizing mountains." Unless the shale is on/near the surface. Over the Bakken, folks are drilling and pumping, not mining. The hard parts are the relatively new horizontal drilling techniques being used.

Those who took the time to scan the blog A. Leonard linked to would have noticed discussion of the output of wells, not of mines.

I only hope that the environmentalists that actually know things can be heard over the clamor from the under informed.

Donald trump said something like "If I owe you a $100,000 then I have a problem. If I owe you $100,000,000 then YOU have a problem.

The real question then, is who does Bear-Stearns owe all those billions to? It certainly isn't the stock holders or executives. The best we've heard so far is "the market" but that is just a distraction.

As we've heard so often: "Follow the money".

A concoction of sweet wine and assorted fruits is placed in an opaque blue blown glass bottle and set aside to age. An artificial cork tightly seals the bottle to thwart feminine access. It is never opened, but looks damn fine just sitting there. It is occasionally taken to parties, gifted, regifted, but never opened.

When no one is watching, various men sneak up and take a sip from the bottle. They know a secret, but deny everything. As such, the bottle seems to magically loose weight until, finally, it is empty. The bottle is thrown away once its emptiness is noticed.

Praise to manos99 for the John Waters reference. Don't forget the egg lady.

Tracy Ullman starred in "A Dirty Shame" directed by John Waters and did a screamingly funny version of the Hokey-Pokey.