It was on December 20, 2004, ten days after the Court met our father under the cover of "instruction on the procedure" to twist the argument and determine he was normal, when we appeared at a press conference to say that our father was ill.
The problem was not only the Court that ignored the opinions written by psychiatrists and gave a "diagnosis" like a doctor, but also the Tokyo Detention House that created the "record" of our visitation as if we were able to communicate with our father, and submitted it to the Court.
It was impossible for us to remain silent any longer. It was as clear as day that the more we keep silence, the more false facts would be fabricated.
Our father is not malingering. He is seriously ill, wearing a diaper unable to control even toiletry duties. We sought for medical treatment by making the truth public. It was the only move we could think of as his family in order to have our ill father treated.
If this goes on, our father will be politically treated as “normal” and wiped out, without being able to receive medial treatment or face a fair trial.
As it turned out, the Tokyo Detention House began to interfere with visitation and harass us immediately after the press conference. They were probably unforgiving of us publicizing our father’s condition.
Monday, February 5, 2018
Saturday, February 3, 2018
＃11 Against the constitutional principle
As described earlier, the procedure was different when we met our father at the Court, and there were other different things.
Specifically, this "instruction on the procedure" was given without notifying the defense attorneys. The Japanese Constitution has a principle to hold a trial in a public courtroom (Article 82 or the Constitution). As the defense attorneys were disputing our father's litigation capacity, conviction for litigation capacity must be established in a public courtroom.
The Court probably thought what they were doing was not a normal action. They secretly met our father, and concluded that he was normal and had vision.
If the defense attorneys were present, a false claim cannot be made against the facts. If the Court claims that our father was able to "understand" because of the "noise" he uttered, the defense attorneys would have corrected it, explaining that he was only making an "irrelevant noise that sounded like nodding" by clarifying the anteroposterior relationship between the noise that sounded like nodding and the story in the situation.
Therefore, we imagine that the Court had to meet our father in a secret place while he did not even know where he was.
They crossed the line as a supposedly fair court.
"Diagnosis" of our father passed by the Court led to a reckless attempt; that is, the Court later uprooted fairness of "expert opinion".
Specifically, this "instruction on the procedure" was given without notifying the defense attorneys. The Japanese Constitution has a principle to hold a trial in a public courtroom (Article 82 or the Constitution). As the defense attorneys were disputing our father's litigation capacity, conviction for litigation capacity must be established in a public courtroom.
The Court probably thought what they were doing was not a normal action. They secretly met our father, and concluded that he was normal and had vision.
If the defense attorneys were present, a false claim cannot be made against the facts. If the Court claims that our father was able to "understand" because of the "noise" he uttered, the defense attorneys would have corrected it, explaining that he was only making an "irrelevant noise that sounded like nodding" by clarifying the anteroposterior relationship between the noise that sounded like nodding and the story in the situation.
Therefore, we imagine that the Court had to meet our father in a secret place while he did not even know where he was.
They crossed the line as a supposedly fair court.
"Diagnosis" of our father passed by the Court led to a reckless attempt; that is, the Court later uprooted fairness of "expert opinion".
Thursday, February 1, 2018
＃10 Is it considered as able to reply by turning to the person?
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
♯９ Court that "diagnosed" our father
The defense attorneys for the appeal trial had been reporting our father's condition to the Court since visitation became possible. However, it seems like the Court was not interested or ignored it.
The defense attorneys not only reported to the Court his condition at the time of visitation but also requested psychiatric evaluation and suspension of the public trial procedure by attaching opinions written by psychiatrists. This was a petition to first give medical treatment to our father since he is not capable of being tried, i.e., no litigation capacity, and then to suspend the trial procedure until he is in a condition to stand trial.
Three written opinions were submitted dated October 26, November 5 and December 10. The "need of thorough examination and medical treatment" for our father was pointed out in these opinions. In psychiatric evaluation, experienced physicians, etc. determine the party's mental condition based on special knowledge and experiences to report their opinions to a court. It is also stipulated in Article 314 Section 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the public trial procedure must be suspended if there is no litigation capacity.
Nevertheless, the Court ignored the doctors' written opinions. On December 10 of the same year, two judges and a clerk including the Presiding Judge Suda for the appeal trial visited the Tokyo Detention House to interview our father for the purpose of "giving instruction on the procedure to submit the statement of reasons for appeal."
We heard that the wheelchair that our father was on was placed on a sheet to protect the floor due to fear of incontinence. Incontinence means inability to control urination or bowel movement. In other words, our father received "instruction on the procedure" from the Presiding Judge on the premise of being unable to control toiletry duties.
Communication with our father is impossible even for his family. There is no reason that only the Presiding Judge is able to communicate with him.
The Court considered that our father "replied" with the noise he uttered that sounded like nodding. You cannot conclude it as a reply unless the party' understanding can be confirmed. Nevertheless, the Court "diagnosed" that our father was normal, stating that he seemed to understand the content of "instruction on the procedure."
The defense attorneys not only reported to the Court his condition at the time of visitation but also requested psychiatric evaluation and suspension of the public trial procedure by attaching opinions written by psychiatrists. This was a petition to first give medical treatment to our father since he is not capable of being tried, i.e., no litigation capacity, and then to suspend the trial procedure until he is in a condition to stand trial.
Three written opinions were submitted dated October 26, November 5 and December 10. The "need of thorough examination and medical treatment" for our father was pointed out in these opinions. In psychiatric evaluation, experienced physicians, etc. determine the party's mental condition based on special knowledge and experiences to report their opinions to a court. It is also stipulated in Article 314 Section 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the public trial procedure must be suspended if there is no litigation capacity.
Nevertheless, the Court ignored the doctors' written opinions. On December 10 of the same year, two judges and a clerk including the Presiding Judge Suda for the appeal trial visited the Tokyo Detention House to interview our father for the purpose of "giving instruction on the procedure to submit the statement of reasons for appeal."
We heard that the wheelchair that our father was on was placed on a sheet to protect the floor due to fear of incontinence. Incontinence means inability to control urination or bowel movement. In other words, our father received "instruction on the procedure" from the Presiding Judge on the premise of being unable to control toiletry duties.
Communication with our father is impossible even for his family. There is no reason that only the Presiding Judge is able to communicate with him.
The Court considered that our father "replied" with the noise he uttered that sounded like nodding. You cannot conclude it as a reply unless the party' understanding can be confirmed. Nevertheless, the Court "diagnosed" that our father was normal, stating that he seemed to understand the content of "instruction on the procedure."
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
♯８ Searching for a glimpse of rational nature…..
Our father simply kept uttering irrelevant noise that sounded like nodding for 20 minutes, or 30 minutes, in front of us who were silent….. Yet, we tried hard to search for a glimpse of rational nature in our father.
Unfortunately, we were not able to deceive ourselves any longer, as we looked at our father who gave no response not just to Umi and Rika but also to our younger brothers, who were parted from him when they were babies and my father would have desired to watch growing.
We were no different from the air to our father. He even did not recognize that we visited him. He nodded alone, smiled alone, suffered alone, and groaned alone when seized with cramp. He had gone to such a far world even though he was only physically 50 centimeters away from us on the other side of the Plexiglas.
The fact that our father was seriously ill hit us as a desperate reality as it was our only hope to meet and talk with him some day.
Unfortunately, we were not able to deceive ourselves any longer, as we looked at our father who gave no response not just to Umi and Rika but also to our younger brothers, who were parted from him when they were babies and my father would have desired to watch growing.
We were no different from the air to our father. He even did not recognize that we visited him. He nodded alone, smiled alone, suffered alone, and groaned alone when seized with cramp. He had gone to such a far world even though he was only physically 50 centimeters away from us on the other side of the Plexiglas.
The fact that our father was seriously ill hit us as a desperate reality as it was our only hope to meet and talk with him some day.
Friday, September 30, 2016
♯7 Nodding with meaning, or just a noise
At the fifth visitation from Umi's first visitation, we decided to try one thing during the meeting with our father to confirm whether or not the noise he uttered was a nod or an irrelevant sound. We went silent for nine minutes until the end of visitation.
Our father suddenly smiled, and kept uttering noise on his own, like "un, un," "eyain, un, enn" in front of us who were silent.
At the following visitation of Rika alone, she only said, "Good morning," wondering what would happen if there was no stimulation from the beginning, and watched his reaction in silence. If he starts uttering noise that sounds like nodding when Rika is silent, that is a "noise" with no relevance or meaning.
The Detention House probably did not want anyone to recognize that our father was uttering "noise" without meaning, and warned Rika that visitation would end if she did not talk.
If we keep talking, however, a noise that sounds like nodding always overlaps at some point, like "un, en, in," and they could lie, claiming that "communication with his family is successful."
During subsequent visitations, we observed our father's appearance through talking to him and going silent. We soon realized that there was no relevance or meaning in the noise he uttered though it sounded like nodding.
Our father suddenly smiled, and kept uttering noise on his own, like "un, un," "eyain, un, enn" in front of us who were silent.
At the following visitation of Rika alone, she only said, "Good morning," wondering what would happen if there was no stimulation from the beginning, and watched his reaction in silence. If he starts uttering noise that sounds like nodding when Rika is silent, that is a "noise" with no relevance or meaning.
The Detention House probably did not want anyone to recognize that our father was uttering "noise" without meaning, and warned Rika that visitation would end if she did not talk.
If we keep talking, however, a noise that sounds like nodding always overlaps at some point, like "un, en, in," and they could lie, claiming that "communication with his family is successful."
During subsequent visitations, we observed our father's appearance through talking to him and going silent. We soon realized that there was no relevance or meaning in the noise he uttered though it sounded like nodding.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
♯６ ”Impossible….” Increasing anxiety
The defense attorneys requested partial release of visitation prohibition for us; however it was only accepted for the second daughter ‘Umi’(This is her pen name.). She was able to meet our father on August 17, 2004 for the first time as a family member. Since communication between defense attorneys and our father was never successful, Umi was supposed to explain the background of selecting defense attorneys, etc. to him. Defense attorneys told Umi to be prepared, saying, “He is probably not malingering. He may be truly ill. He might not understand even though it was Umi. Please be prepared.”
Even though the defense attorneys warned us about our father’s illness, she did not believe he was ill. She believed that her father would respond in some ways if she as a daughter went to see him.
Partial release of visitation prohibition was requested again for us, and Rika was finally allowed to see him as well. After that, visitation was also allowed to our younger siblings. Similar to Umi, Rika also believed that her father would understand her.
We remembered to always take our notebook to keep a record when we visited him.
In the beginning when visitation became possible, we just kept talking to our father since we had longed to see him and there were so many things to tell him. He nodded, smiled, and appeared to be listening to our stories. As we kept talking to him, however, we became anxious and started to feel what the defense attorneys were saying to us might be true, suspecting that he might not recognize us but he might be just smiling irrelevantly and uttering some “noise” that sounded like nodding. As we repeated visitation, such feeling of discomfort and anxiety rapidly grew more and more.
Even though the defense attorneys warned us about our father’s illness, she did not believe he was ill. She believed that her father would respond in some ways if she as a daughter went to see him.
Partial release of visitation prohibition was requested again for us, and Rika was finally allowed to see him as well. After that, visitation was also allowed to our younger siblings. Similar to Umi, Rika also believed that her father would understand her.
We remembered to always take our notebook to keep a record when we visited him.
In the beginning when visitation became possible, we just kept talking to our father since we had longed to see him and there were so many things to tell him. He nodded, smiled, and appeared to be listening to our stories. As we kept talking to him, however, we became anxious and started to feel what the defense attorneys were saying to us might be true, suspecting that he might not recognize us but he might be just smiling irrelevantly and uttering some “noise” that sounded like nodding. As we repeated visitation, such feeling of discomfort and anxiety rapidly grew more and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)