… I’m not sure who’s blog you were reading, but it may not have been mine, because I’ve never been a professor anywhere.

This fact, hitherto unknown to me, does, of course, change your entire standing as a commenter. Under these circumstances I should definitely not have refused to enter into private correspondence with you, instead I should have respectfully addressed you as “Esteemed Professor Peter Pan”.

It is, however, truly sad that the university you worked at obviously did not feature a Law School…

You may well have a good point here - I am definitely not contradicting you this time.

Peter Pan:

“testimony is nothing more than hear-say without evidence to support it”

This statement of yours is obvious nonsense.

If testimony turns out to be hearsay it will be inadmissible in court and it is the judge’s duty to prevent its presentation at the trial. If such testimony has, deliberately or accidentally, been introduced into the trial without the judge having prevented this, s/he will rule it inadmissible and will tell the jury to disregard it - a most akward situation for all those who are responsible for the blunder.

Otherwise, testimony is perfectly good evidence, often the only evidence available. There are, however, certain forms of testimony (e.g. testimony given by children or by the mentally impaired) which are in need of support by other forms of evidence, in order to be admissible in court as evidence.

Peter Pan, before you continue lecturing us what does or does not constitute evidence I suggest you go down to your local library, grab a law book, and try soaking up some knowledge about the topic, especially about the nature and function of the hearsay rule.

Or, alternatively, I suggest watching some of those popular US courtroom dramas - many are of excellent quality as far as the presentation of the legal issues is concerned. You might be able to pick up a lot of legal knowledge from them - and thus the quality of your comments may take a definite and much-needed turn for the better.

In case of Japan there was no systematic order except for the tranfer of the prositutes.

And Japanese police and military were very aware that there are cased where women were deceived or kidnapped. That is why they regulated illegal pimps.

It is my policy to enter inter private correspondance only with commenters who have been active members of the Korea-related blogosphere for at least half a year, covering an array of various topics with their comments. I am not interested in entering into correspondence with those who do not seem to be genuinely interested in Korea-related issues, except for the refutation of claims brought by Korea as a country, or by Korean nationals, against other countries or their nationals.

The above statement is in no way intended to express support for each and every of those claims. Members of the K-blogosphere who have actually read my comments, or some of them, during the last year will be well aware of this.

This lie of Speer’s saved his head at Nuremberg. Instead, he was sentenced to 20-year imprisonment, and was thus released in 1966. From then on he lead a quite glamorous life as the only Nazi Government Member who was still alive and available for interviews. After effectively doing little else but giving talks about the era for 15 years he died peacefully in 1981 (of all places in London (!), because there, as well as in the US he enjoyed the highest possible reputation as a war time whitness and as a “really bad guy” turned round).

Meanwhile, in Germany there were serious doubts all along as to his lack of knowledge - and soon after his death the leading specialists for the period in question came to the conclusion that there was ample proof (historical, not legal proof) to warrant the conclusion that Speer not only knew very well about the camps but also had made clear on several occasions how the inmates should be dealt with - in his view merely pointlessly gassing them was futile, instead they should be put to their best possible use by being made to work themselves to death. Hitler, however, favoured the use of gas chambers as the most reliable and expedient extermination method. And as Hitler was the “Führer” he had his way.

In dictatorships, such as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Communist North Korea the top dogs do not need to give formal orders, nor even do they need to state their intentions clearly, to get done what they want to get done - they merely drop coy hints, but these hints are clear enough to let those further down in the hierarchy know what they are expected to do.

E.g. there has never turned up any government order for the construction of extermination camps, yet these were undoubtedly not the product of mere private entrepreneurship.

(I’m not frustrated, just saddened that someone such as yourself who has a law degree from a respectable British university would say one thing, and then when questioned about it say I created a straw man; especially when said one thing is to say that evidence is not necessary.

I’m sorry that I have not yet proven my worth to you in order to be graced with the awesome power that is an email from someone such as yourself, but after reading your last comment, I am confidant that I’m not missing out on anything.

Please let us know when your well respected law degree allows for you to read your own comments.)

What is your logic to refute my logic?

Japanese government set up the fund.
Some ex-comfort women have received the money through the foundation, Indonesia received it as a nation, saying “インドネシア政府は、元「慰安婦」の認定が困難であること、元「慰安婦」の方々やその家族の尊厳を守らなくてはならないこと、日本・インドネシア間の賠償問題は平和条約等によって解決済みであること等の理由から、元「慰安婦」個人に対する事業ではなく、「高齢者福祉施設」整備事業への支援を受けたいという方針を持つにいたったのです”
It is difficult to identify ex-comfort women, and
it is important to protect the dignity of ex-comfort women and her family, the issue of compensation had been settled by the peace treaty, Indonesian government would receive it as a project for the older people, not as a project for individual ex-comfort women.”,
http://www.awf.or.jp/ianfu/country_in.html:
others are others are rejecting it, saying they want money directly from the government.
(In case of Indonesia, if I remember correctly, when Japanese asked ex-comfort women to come forward, there were so many women that in calculation, each Japanese soldiers had one prostitute.)

And if you look at the constitution, it is clear Japanese Prime minister represents Japan.

Who’s going to apologize to ex-forced-prostitutes under Germany /Korea :they have no emperor.

Japanese PM issued apology.

(Germany and Korea have not)

Korea complained that they should be given money, saying she will take care of individual cases.
They got it.
They complained they wanted an apology.
They got it.
They complained they wanted more money individually for comfort women.
The wish is granted.

But they are not satisfied, saying the attitude was bad when the apology was made etc.

Korea will keep complain whatever, under Roh, under whoever. More and more Japanese are beginning to realise it.