A joint translation with @speranzom, who was generous enough to provide the Takken Taro part from the summary https://jbbs.shitaraba.net/bbs/read.cgi/music/29852/1553736787 for 11/3 (Sunday).
Note: I try to repeat the Japanese thread as closely as possible here. Where I do make some editorial additions I’ll put them in [ ], though I do occasionally soften the posters’ tone.
- Maho’s Instagram and Instastory
- Riko’s tweet
- A report on TBS Newscaster about what Sponichi has been doing
- “NGT Incident” is nominated for a buzzword of 2019
- Theory that the story about exchanging contact information at a handshake event is from an episode with Tano
- Story that before the incident, someone observed Kitagawa with a group of people and Tano with a group of girls making racket around the Niigata Station
- A lawyer explains the danger to the AKS trial of evidentiary documents being illegally circulated
- Attorney Shishikado Nobuaki’s blog: “An illegal diversion of trial materials? The trial’s records and the honor of un-interested parties ・ A question of privacy protection”
- A copy of the record of proceedings is for interested parties or stakeholders only. A sports paper is not a stakeholder, so it is limited to a route using an interested party (AKS or the defendants) or interested person.
- Also when speaking about this matter, in a lawsuit it’s possible for the truth to be turned and twisted about.
- As a joint effort on the parts of the plaintiff AKS and the defendants, Yamaguchi has been put in the place of an outsider, so they might be able to make it seem that the “truths” she said are just a peculiar impertinence.
- Takken Taro: Comparing the original lawsuit document and the preparatory papers: A reflection on “The obscure I”
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwARegMVapk
- This “I”-san is a curious entity, what with not appearing in the plaintiff’s lawsuit complaint itself
- There are notations such as “defendant #1” and “defendant #2” found inside. And since “1” and “I” look similar, one may want to avoid using them both so as not to cause confusion. That’s for what concerns what’s written in the original lawsuit document
- But then in the defendants’ preparatory papers, you see it is written “As for what concerns members that don’t appear in the lawsuit complaint, they’re indicated in alphabet letters outside of I”
- –
- The following description is problematic. Those are the same accounts from the same document
“Defendant #1 asked Miss Yamaguchi why she wouldn’t reply to him in direct messages”
“In response, Miss Yamaguchi replied that she was told by “I” that «defendant #1 and G are consorting in a private area»”
“”I” also said of her that «Miss Yamaguchi and defendant #1 are likely associating on a private area too»” - It is as this point that “I” shows up
At the beginning, in the defendant’s preparatory papers, it said that “no mention of “I” will be made” - However, when one gets to the parts afterwards, this “I” individual then makes an appearance
Despite the fact they say that they won’t be using the “I” notation, this “I” still appears, which makes it a pretty perplexing preparatory paper - Why is it that this “I”, about which they say they wouldn’t use the notation of, then makes an appearance in the latter parts?
- –
- (Observation on what may be behind it) A conservative observation, without making any keen remarks
- ① One theory is that “I” is not a member
Since it’s written that they wouldn’t use the “I” notation, as far as the other members are concerned,
as long as this “I” person isn’t a member but someone from the management side, there wouldn’t be any contradictions.
Still, that changes the initial understanding that they aren’t using the “I” notation because it would easily cause confusion - ② Another theory is that, simply enough, they forgot they wrote it before.
- ① One theory is that “I” is not a member
- –
- Problem is, if we assume “I” to be a member, then it would feel bizarre
- The words “private area” first appear in the research report of the third party committee on the definition of consorting, actually
- But it is unthinkable that a member, a girl in her teens or twenties, would use a word such as “private area” in an everyday talk
- Which makes one wonder if the talk itself hasn’t just been forged
- –
- (Observation on what may be behind it) Who wrote the defendant’s preparatory papers, then?
- The first half of the preparatory papers get to the point in a keen way, it makes what assertions it should be expected to make
- Instead, on the second half, the would go on to mention about associating with Yamaguchi-san, the part about the assertions by the defendant turn unusually juvenile, in a way that feel ridiculous
The text turns into trying to demonstrate at all costs how they consorted with Yamaguchi-san - And this is all despite to the fact this is not what the lawsuit’s original point of contention is about
- That is, they just go on to write a bunch of stuff that pleases the AKS side
- For some reason, they go on to write things that are praising of AKS, it’s extremely suspicious there are statements being made that would be detrimental to themselves, the defendants
- There’re statements that wouldn’t make sense lined up one after another. One can feel this divergence between the first and second half.
- –
- So, in the lawsuit papers of the AKS side, it’s nowhere written that “We aren’t using the “I” notation”
- Then in the preparatory papers of the defendants, they purposefully go on to say “We aren’t using the “I” notation”
- Yet in spite of that, in the second half, especially in those sections disparaging of Yamaguchi-san, this “I” then makes its appearance, the same about whom they said they wouldn’t use the notation thereof.
- The first half of the preparatory papers is made by the “lawyer on the defendant’s side”, but
as for the second half, what are the odds that it’s written based on something they have been handed over, which seems to have at its source the “lawyer on the AKS side”? - One wouldn’t expect, from the standpoint of the AKS lawyer, that they would make an announcement that “We aren’t using the notations for “I””
- So what are the odds that they ended up using the “I” alphabet notation in the latter part because this happened to be created based on a narrative laid out by AKS?
- Even for what it concerns the documentations from the defendant side, between parts that are actually AKS’s sentiment, and parts that would instead go to the benefit of AKS, one can only wonder if they were handed over to them what they should write, all as part of the narrative.
0 Comments