I suspect the issue of depression was brought up not as a way of saying she was lying, but as a way of saying she may have had other reasons than fear for jumping out a window (i.e. she may have become suicidal). She may have said, "we've had sex; if you won't love me and be my boyfriend I'm going to do something you'll regret". Just for example (women and men both do behave weirdly at times).

We have no idea, and I don't think Price has written very convincingly on this. What was the point of this other than to get everyone riled up? We need to know much, much more before we can say that a miscarriage of justice happened.

I think it's quite possible, but we don't know. However, even if she took off her jeans with her own hands and folded them herself, it means little except that she probably entered the room with the intention to have sex. If she willingly had sex, followed by some scene which ended with her leaping from the window, then the man is innocent. If he raped her and she then jumped from the window (which seems to be the charge), to escape him or because she was distraught, then he is guilty.

It sounds really sticky; I don't want to sit here and speculate. If it's that confusing to the people who are trying the case, how can we know?

The most effective weapon is NOT a gun, stick, bat, knife, or even large muscles or fighting skills

The most effective weapon is THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE!

If you are caught off guard when attacked, YOUR MIND GOES BLANK, and by the time you figure what to do, IT'S TOO LATE! The damage is done.

Date rape usually happens because the victim didn't see it coming! When the rapist starts ripping off the victim's clothes, she is caught by surprise and her mind goes blank (which usually happens to anyone caught by surprise). By the time she figures out what to do, IT'S TOO LATE!

Anyone in prison knows it wouldn't matter if the victim was wearing jeans! THEY KNOW the ELEMENT OF SURPRISE will overcome ANY obstacle!

They know how to pick their targets by catching them off guard! They know the element of surprise is A LOT MORE EFFECTIVE than any object known to humanity!

Those jurors who don't believe "you can't get raped wearing jeans" are SO NAIVE, EVERYONE IS PRISON IS LAUGHING AT THOSE JUROR's NAIVETE!

If the only evidence was her testimony versus folded pants, yes, this could be outrageous, but even small, uncomplicated legal cases can generate hundreds of pages worth of evidence and testimony, and I'm sure that a case involving a severely injured woman who accused a man of rape generated a very large file, much more than this little blurb revealed.

All that said, I cannot see how a pair of neatly folded jeans means jack shit. In theory, a rapist could have threatened her with violence if she didn't take the jeans off, or he could have punched her out and yanked them off of her. And so on. Folding the jeans means even less. If I was a defense lawyer and that was my only excupatory evidence, I'd be mighty worried.

People with depression and no other underlying mental condition are no more prone to lying and exaggerating than people without a diagnosis. Bipolar, sometimes. Depression? No.

The original article had some strange jumps in the process. It said the woman was in a reception area but it never said how she got from the reception area to a room with a bed. Was she dragged?

Also, how could the appeals judge actually know if the jeans were tight if he didn't have the victim try them on? Just because jeans are labeled tight doesn't mean they fit tight on any particular body.

A strange story altogether.

"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."

________________________

That's why I titled my piece, "I don't know about Korea..." and then made general remarks about what I do know.

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.

And that is exactly why I wrote "Seems to me that this story is a good argument for jury trials," dumbo.

A woman writes an article on something of which she knows very little: Korea; law. Do some research, woman! Don't just put out some drivel.

You got ta acquit.

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.

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.

That wasn't my point. My point is exactly what Magdelyn says on page 2 of the comments, post entitled "i don't know about Korea."