Thanks to @speranzom for contribution of the Takken Taro transcript in my translation of the summary from https://jbbs.shitaraba.net/bbs/read.cgi/music/29852/1553736787 for 5/23 (Saturday).
- Riko’s tweets
- Takazawa Tomoka will have a birthday celebration event
- “Notice of “Otaki Yuria’s ‘Figure of a Lady’ CD sales release event” and “Takazawa Tomoka’s birthday celebration event””
- Takazawa Tomoka’s Instagram
- Takken Taro’s tweet
- Takkentaro’s video: “Yamaguchi Maho-san “Hadn’t yet learned in detail about the reason for the non-prosecution””
- https://i.imgur.com/eeAXVYW.jpg
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSYPr1jG_aE
- Turns out that in the papers written by the Ken-On lawyer [regarding AKS’s request at the civil trial for the disclosure of police investigation documents], it is reported that “Yamaguchi-san heard from the prosecutor’s office about the reason it was ruled a non-prosecution only in passing, she hadn’t yet learned about it in detail”
- Also, for some reason, as late as March 25, 2020 the defendants were still found submitting a request to the prosecutor asking them to disclose the police statement reports and such.
- Was it that they thought of wanting to supply themselves with a bunch of such documentation?
- In there, a request for viewing the trial material was submitted even on the part of Ken-On’s corporate lawyer.
- As a matter of fact they sent an authorization letter to their lawyer based in Niigata, with such an attorney consulting the documents on about 3 separate occasions.
- A text transcript of the audio recording tape [of the conversation with the culprits] was also presented as an exhibit in the meantime, yet the original audio of the audio recording tape was not submitted.
- As it is, even if they would lie about what they had written down in their transcript, there’s no way the judge would be able to tell anyway.
- Also, this “Hatsuse Yoshikazu” [who is responsible for the transcript in the evidences list], who turned out to be an employee of the plaintiff [AKS], is he actually a staff manager? I presume he’s one of the staff managers who rushed to the scene, but they had never cared to call him at all in the capacity of testimony. It feels so baffling, doesn’t it?
- Even for what it concerns AKS, too, I mean, they never made any kind of effort to call in for testimony the theater manager Imamura, those staff managers who hurried to the place, let alone the members on whom suspicions were cast.
- If they would be called in, things would get ugly for them, am I right?
- So, with what mentality they are going about 100% trusting at face value what the perpetrators themselves, the same people who personally committed the offence, said and going “Great, all the suspicions have been cleared now”?
- A request to have [the defendants] present as testimony was also made
- So, all the while things were already progressing like “let’s have a peaceful settlement already”, they still up and put forward a petition for a testimony appearance, saying “I want to call them for testimonies”
- And surprisingly enough, both the plaintiff side AKS, and the defendant side, were both speaking of calling over the two perpetrators, that is defendant #1 and defendant #2. Ain’t that baffling…
- It would be understandable how, as normal practice, the attorney of the defendant side would decide to call them over in the function of a testimony of the litigating party, but fact is that also the plaintiff side did too send in a petition for a testimony appearance.
- They [plaintiff and defendant attorney] probably intended to come forward together, huh…
- Did the plaintiff really have the conviction that the they could get any verbal testimony out of them to their benefit? Ain’t that baffling too…
- Why is it that they never cared to call over the theater manager, the staff managers, or the members for that matter?
- Why is it that instead they thought of calling over the perpetrators themselves, in an attempt to get them make a declaration that would go towards their own [AKS’s] advantage? That’s just so baffling, that it’s uncanny.
- In the end, in that whole trial case, who is it that were the actual liars after all?
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.
Why is this here? My original announcement
0 Comments