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 11/16 (Saturday).
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.
- Former NGT KKS Watanabe Ayusa gets 3rd place in a Showroom event
- (She withdrew from activities after Maho, Riko, and Rena quit)
- https://i.imgur.com/xgu1T52.jpg
- Her runway video
- The audio recording clip has been viewed over 1 million times
- Riko’s tweets
- Rena’s tweets
- Takken Taro: “NGT48 The plaintiff’s preparatory papers (part 1): “Their definition of a certain series of statements and actions [by the offenders], etc…”, based on listener’s notes and memory”
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFrcYOdXqL0&app=desktop
- (From the document: For a “certain series of statements and actions [by the offenders]”, we do mean any word and actions [by the offenders] that occurred from the accident in front of Miss Yamaguchi’s apartment up to when the offenders were escorted away by the police)
- Doesn’t AKS want to downplay things? Personally, I don’t find this to be all there is to it about the “harmful actions concerning this case”
- For one thing, for what reason did the defendants even had to come all the way to Yamaguchi-san’s apartment?
- The fact that they previously used to eat out together with other members and have a fun time together with them, wasn’t such a way of consorting itself a contributing factor to the assault incident?
- Wouldn’t it be necessary to consider also what happened prior to the incident, as part of such a series of statements and actions [by the offenders]?
- As per what AKS says, this is rather only the words and actions happening from when they were in front of Yamaguchi-san’s house, up to when they were taken away by the police. They are taking an unusually narrow interpretation of it.
- (From the document: Also, for the “incident in question”, we mean the way the way they waited for Miss Yamaguchi, and came into some sort of direct contact with her”)
- Here the tone is changing from the initial lawsuit complaint. In the plaintiff’s lawsuit complaint they stated it was “grabbing her face with their hands”, but now in those preparatory papers it goes like “Other sorts of direct contacts aside from it are also included!”.
- This is a way for the defendant and the plaintiff to jointly say “There was no assault incident!”.
- For the plaintiff, it is would also seem like a way to keep the court case running, as in “Even if there were no assault, any other sort of direct contact did itself cause economical damages to us anyway!”
- Isn’t it something in preparation for them to hold a press conference, somewhere in the future, where they would assert that “We couldn’t determine there was an assault incident…”, “With the local prosecutor even deciding in favor of a non-prosecution, one must wonder if that part was also nothing more than a misgiving on Yamaguchi-san’s part…?”
- (From the document: As for the level of “[member’s] involvement”, we mean acting as enablers in a way one may suspect it would constitute a collusion)
- “Enabling” here means to assist in a crime
- After that, on what they mean by “involvement”, AKS would go on about having instigated a crime as intended in a criminal case, about what constitutes criminal collusion, etc…
- By stating “This is what we mean when we say involvement, not anything outside of that”, they thus end up minimizing matters and interpreting it in a very narrow way
- That itself is weird. Yamaguchi-san isn’t limiting it to being an issue of whether there’s any involvement as intended in a criminal case.
- Yamaguchi-san herself never said about there being a matter of there being criminal collusion, indeed.
- Yet in here they mention “involvement” in the way the term comes up in criminal cases, to mean criminal conspiracy or criminal incitement
- Are they trying to say with it, for example, that the defendants committed no assault in which they grabbed her face and all the rest? If they acknowledge to that, then the argument would then turn into “It’s the misgivings on Yamaguchi-san’s part that are questionable, instead”
- So, they want to say that on top of no such thing having ever happened, it was all Yamaguchi-san holding misgivings. From this part, one can notice how they are attempting to take the debate in the direction that it was rather Yamaguchi-san who was questionable.
- At this point, one already has the future AKS press conference flashing before one’s own eyes:
- “There was no criminal conspiracy or criminal incitement on part of other members in this incident”
- “Even the local prosecutor decided toward a non-prosecution, which we believe backs up the claim”
- “It’s the misgivings on Yamaguchi-san’s part themselves that were instead suspicious”
- “All the other members are innocent, there’s not a single one who’s at fault”
- If they aren’t writing the definition of “involvement” in a way that limits it to what just concerns criminal cases just for the sake of holding such a press conference, then what else?
- (From the document: It thus caused Miss Yamaguchi to harbor misgivings that in the incident considered to be a criminal act, they acted as enablers in a way that fits the standards of criminal conspiracy, criminal instigation, and criminal abetment.
- This, it is just AKS making arbitrary statements
- The claim that Yamaguchi-san was harboring those misgivings in a way only limited to mean a criminal case is purely AKS’s arbitrary assertion
- https://i.imgur.com/8q4pVxa.jpg
- https://i.imgur.com/7oe7MGa.jpg
- https://i.imgur.com/vQJAdd5.jpg
- Riko’s tweet
0 Comments