My translation of the summary from https://jbbs.shitaraba.net/bbs/read.cgi/music/29852/1553736787 for 12/26 (Thursday).
Thanks to @speranzom for the translation of the lawyer’s blog summary!
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
694： LillyRush ：2019/12/26(木) 21:40:47 ★１２月２６日（木） ・長谷川玲奈出演「ランチタイムはじめちゃった」トークショーレポ https://i.imgur.com/1DVWMtW.png ・まほりこぽん美容師のインスタで菅原りこ https://i.imgur.com/0oWS9S8.jpg https://i.imgur.com/ycxNT7U.jpg https://i.imgur.com/oKh75f3.jpg ・弁護士 師子角允彬のブログ：非典型的な被告の行動・陳述書に基づいた事実拡散の危険性（ＮＧＴ裁判） https://sskdlawyer.hatenablog.com/entry/2019/12/26/205229 ▽被告のキャス配信をして東スポの記事になった ▽マスメディアがこうした話を拡散することに関しては、もう少し慎重さがあってもよいのではないか ▽主な根拠は以下「２」「３」の二点 ▽一つ目の根拠は、被告の意図がよく分からないこと ▽「弁護士から発言への許可を取っていることも明かした。」と書かれていますが、これは普通のことではありません ▽係争途中の事件について、依頼人から自分の認識を動画配信してよいかと聞かれた場合、弁護士がこれを推奨することはありません ▽訴訟に勝つための行動として合理的ではないからです ▽ネット上で音声を流すと、それが録音によって固定化される ▽供述の固定化は、訴訟戦略の阻害要因になります ▽一旦供述が固定化されると、それとは違ったストーリーを構築することができなくなってしまう ▽顔をつかんだ点を明確に否定していない録音データが存在する状況下で「顔をつかんでいない」と主張 ▽録音がとられている時点で顔をつかんだことを明確に否定していなかったことの理由を説明する必要が生じる ▽大した理由もないのに言っていることがコロコロ変わる人の話は信用しづらい ▽二つ目の根拠は、陳述書や肉声には、それ自体に証拠として高い価値があるわけではないこと ▽陳述書に書かれていること（配信される肉声も基本的には似たようなものです）は、単なる一方当事者の主観的認識にすぎません ▽反対尋問すら行われていない陳述書に書かれていることを拡散してゆくことに、果たしてどれだけの意味があるのだろうか
- Report on going to a talk show for the program Rena appears in, ランチタイムはじめちゃった [Lunchtime’s Started]
- Riko on the Instagram of Maho, Riko, and Rena’s beautician
- Lawyer Shishikado Nobuaki’s blog: “The atypical behavior of the defendant / The dangerousness of spreading information based on statement papers (NGT trial)”
- https://sskdlawyer.hatenablog.com/entry/2019/12/26/205229
- The defendant recently had a TweetCast broadcast and it was made into a TokyoSports article
- I have to wonder if the mass media should better exercise a little bit more of caution about spreading stories such as this.
- The main basis for this argument are the two points below: [2] and [3]
- The first basis is that the intentions of the defendant are not clearly understandable
- It has been written how “he even made it clear that he got permission from his lawyer about speaking out”, but this is not a normal thing to happen
- When it comes to an incident which is still in the middle of a civil litigation, if asked from their client if the may hold a stream to broadcast one’s own opinions, the lawyer wouldn’t endorse that
- That’s because it’s not a logical action to do to win the lawsuit
- If ones lets one’s voice be diffused over the Internet, this can be preserved by audio recording.
- Having one’s statement preserved represents a main source of obstruction toward one’s court trial strategy
- Once your statements are preserved, you can no longer make up a story different from it
- For example while in a situation where there’s audio data where you won’t clearly deny that you grabbed another person still by the face, you then go on to claim that “I didn’t grab her still by the face”
- Necessity would then arise to explain why you couldn’t decisively deny that you grabbed her still by the face, back at the moment the audio was taken
- A story from a man who keeps changing over and over what he says, despite there being no major reason for it, is also hard to believe
- The second basis is that there isn’t any great value about statement papers and one’s own live voice, by themselves
- What’s written in the statement papers (similar, at its essence, to the live voice that was broadcast on stream), is simply nothing more than the subjective opinion of one side of the parties of the case
- What point there is in the end, about spreading what’s written inside statement papers about which no cross-examination is performed?
0 Comments