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).
Source
915: LillyRush :2020/05/23(土) 21:25:48
★5月日23日(土)
・菅原りこツイート
https://i.imgur.com/FWbqbK2.png
・高沢朋花が誕生日記念イベントを開催
▽『大滝友梨亜「乙女模様」CD発売記念イベント』 『高沢朋花生誕記念イベント』開催のお知らせ
https://i.imgur.com/nKcjDkv.png
https://00m.in/viUuU
▽高沢朋花インスタ
https://i.imgur.com/dDgoq5Z.jpg
・宅建ツイート
https://i.imgur.com/77g3EDx.jpg
・宅建動画:山口真帆さん、「不起訴理由、詳しく聞いていない」
https://i.imgur.com/eeAXVYW.jpg
https://www.you○tube.com/watch?v=cSYPr1jG_aE
▽研音の弁護士が書いた文章に「山口さんは検察から不起訴になった理由は一応聞いているけれど詳しくは聞いていないんだ」と載っています
▽なぜか令和2年3月25日に被告たちが検察に対して供述調書等を開示しろと申請を出している
▽よほど書類を取り寄せたいと思っていたのか、疑問ではあります
▽研音の顧問弁護士から裁判資料の閲覧申請が出ていました
▽新潟の弁護士に委任状を出して、その弁護士が3回ほど閲覧に来ていた
▽録音テープの文字起こしが証拠として出ていましたけど、録音テープの音源自体は出ていませんね
▽嘘をついて文字起こしをしても裁判長にはわからない
▽原告従業員「初瀬義一」さん、マネージャーですかね、駆けつけたマネージャーのうちの一人だと思いますけど、この人は証人として全然呼ばれない。不思議な感じですよね
▽AKSもね、今村支配人、駆けつけたマネージャー、疑惑をかけられたメンバーを全然証人として呼ぼうとしないっていうね
▽呼んだら不味い事でもあるんでしょうかね
▽犯人たち、犯罪を犯すような人たちが言ったことをそのまま100%信じて、「いや~疑惑が晴れました」とかね、一体どんな感覚でやってるんでしょう
▽人証申し込みもされていました
▽もう和解するんだという流れになってる中で、証人を呼びたいって人証が出ていました
▽なんと原告AKS側も被告側も、被告1と被告2の2人の犯人を呼ぶというね。不思議ですね~
▽普通、本人尋問という形で被告側の弁護士が呼ぶのならわかりますけど、原告も人証の申し立てをしていますからね
▽一緒に来るつもりだったんですかね
▽原告に有利な証言が取れるって自信があるってことなんですかね。不思議ですね
▽なんで支配人とかマネージャーとかメンバーを呼ばないんでしょうね
▽なんで犯人たちを呼んで自分たちに有利な発言をさせようとするのか不思議でしょうがないですね
▽この裁判、本当の嘘つきは誰だったんでしょうね
- 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