In addition to the claim of successful conversation with our father because he nodded, We heard the Court's claim that our father "replied" by turning to the Court personnel when they were introduced; therefore they did not receive impression that he was blind.
Our father is completely blind. He had no sight in one of his eyes since he was born, and completely lost sight in the other eye in the early 1990s. To us who had assisted our father and helped his daily living, it is only an illusion to consider that he can see. Is the Court supposed to be a doctor who determines his vision? Did they validly determine that he had vision through tests and observation over a long time?
First of all, We cannot help doubting the response by the Court that tries to make sense out of nonsense, arguing that he "replied" when he simply looked in one direction.
According to Kojien (famous Japanese dictionary), response or responding is described as follows: "to answer after being talked to by someone or being asked a question; answer." Looking at something is not equal to "responding" within the context of Japanese language.
We cannot help suspecting impatience on the side of the Court, as they had to twist the argument to such an excessive extent.
The Court also claimed that our father had a characteristic to respond to the word "defense attorney" with smile. They might have meant that our father was normal but was not able to communicate because the other party was a "defense attorney" which would have been different if it was a judge. They are only trying to make sense out of nonsense, as far as even his family is not successfully communicating with him. Our father just irrelevantly smiles on his own and repeats nodding in front of anyone or whether or not he hears any words or does not hear anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment