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.
Source
577： LillyRush ：2019/11/04(月) 12:14:08
★１１月３日（日）①
・山口真帆ストーリー＆インスタ
https://i.imgur.com/9btaW4n.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/3CCpFgM.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/SLKktsI.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Yr9vedp.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/KCAaN8p.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/CXeXK2S.jpg
・菅原りこツイート
https://i.imgur.com/E59j6ao.png
・TBSニュースキャスターで、スポニチのやらかしについて報道
https://streamable.com/ftppx
・2019年 流行語ノミネートに「NGT事件」
https://i.imgur.com/yLW6Koi.jpg
・握手会で連絡先を交換した話は太野のエピソード説
https://i.imgur.com/pYTkvgg.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/svzXtEy.png
・事件の前、新潟駅周辺で北川と複数人、太野と複数人の女の子が騒いでいるのを目撃した、という話
https://i.imgur.com/S4NzJci.jpg
・弁護士が今回のAKS裁判の危険性と証拠資料の横流しを説明
▽裁判資料の横流し？ 訴訟記録と非当事者の名誉・プライバシー保護の問題：弁護士 師子角允彬のブログ
https://sskdlawyer.hatenablog.com/entry/2019/11/03/005508
▽訴訟記録のコピーは当事者 or 利害関係者だけ。スポーツ新聞は利害関係者ではないので、当事者（AKSか被告）のルートか利害関係人のルートに限られる
https://i.imgur.com/9Rdm2PZ.jpg
▽本件に関して言えば、訴訟で真実が捻じ曲げられる可能性がある
https://i.imgur.com/fJ1fVf0.png
▽原告AKSと被告との合作により、山口氏を蚊帳の外に置いたまま、山口氏が先走って変なことを言ってしまったという「真実」が作られてしまいかねない
https://i.imgur.com/kNHF15y.jpg
578： LillyRush ：2019/11/04(月) 12:48:09
★１１月３日（日）②
・宅建太郎：NGT48 訴状と準備書面比較「謎のIさん」の考察
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwARegMVapk
▽訴状には出てこない「I」さんが不思議な存在
▽「被告１」「被告２」という表記がある。この「１」と「I」が似ているので混同しないように使わないようにする。これが訴状の書き方
▽準備書面には「訴状に登場しないメンバーらについては『I』以外の文字で表記する」と書いてある
▽次の記述が問題。同じ文書の同じ記載
「被告１が山口氏に対しDMを返信してくれなかったことについて質問した」
「これらに対し山口氏は『Iから』“被告１とGが指摘領域で繋がっているらしい”と言われた」
「『Iから』“山口さんも被告１と指摘領域で繋がっているんでしょ”と言われた」
▽ここで「I」が出てくる
準備書面の最初で「Iについては表記しない」と言っていた
▽ところが後ろの方になって「I」という人物が出てくる
「I」を使わないと言っているにIも関わらず「I」が出てくる不思議な準備書面になっている
▽どうして使わないと言っていた「I」が後ろの方で出てくるのか
▽【表の考察】穿った見方をしない、穏便な考察
①「I」はメンバーでない説
他のメンバーについては「I」を使わないと書いているので
この「I」がメンバーじゃなくて運営側の人間であるなら矛盾はしない。
でもそれだと当初の混同しやすいから「I」を使わないという趣旨が変わってくる
②単純に前に書いていたことを忘れていた説
▽ただ「I」がメンバーだとすると、おかしい感じがする
▽指摘領域という言葉は第三者委員会の報告書の繋がりの定義として初めて出てくる
▽メンバー１０代や２０代の女の子たちが「私的領域」なんて言葉を日常会話で使ってるとは とても思えない
▽この会話自体が捏造されたものではないか
▽【裏の考察】準備書面は誰が書いているの？
▽準備書面の前半部分は鋭く切り込んで、主張すべき部分は主張している
▽後半部分、山口さんとの繋がりに言及している、被告が主張している部分は非常に稚拙で、ありえないような感じ。
無理やり山口さんとの繋がりを証明しようとしているような文章になっている
▽本来の争点でないにも関わらず
▽AKS側が喜ぶようなことがいっぱい書いてある
▽なぜかAKSを褒め称えるようなことが書いてあって、被告側に不利になるような記述があって非常に不審
▽腑に落ちないようなことがザーっと並んでいる。前半と後半でギャップを感じる
▽AKS側の訴状には「Iは使いませんよ」と書いてなかった
▽被告の準備書面はわざわざ「Iは使わないよ」と言ってきている
▽にも関わらず、後半の方で、特に山口さんを貶めるような被告側の主張の部分で、わざわざ使わないと言っていた「I」を登場させている
▽準備書面の前半部分は「被告側の弁護士」が作成しているけれども
後半部分は「AKS側の弁護士」が元になりそうなものを渡しておいて、それに基づいて書いているんじゃないか？
▽AKS側の弁護士からすると「Iは使わないよ」と宣言するとは予想してなかった
▽AKSの用意したシナリオを元に作ったために、後ろの方で「I」という文字を使ってしまったんじゃないか
▽被告側の書類もかなりの部分について、AKS側の意思であるとか、AKS側に有利になることとか、書くべきことがシナリオとして渡されているんじゃないか
- 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