The Tokyo High Court determined “not to invoke authority” over the request to suspend the procedure of public trial by the defense attorneys on August 19, 2005. “Not to invoke authority” in this case means not to handle the request by the defense team, i.e., to do nothing.
However, upon introductory remarks that the “declaration of the litigation capacity is unshakable”, the Court made an unprecedented assertion at the same time, “We are carefully considering to ask professionals of psychiatric medicine for an opinion on the presence of the defendant’s litigation capacity in the form of an expert opinion, in accordance with the stipulation on investigation of facts (from the document distributed by the 10th Criminal Division of Tokyo High Court on August 19).”
The introductory remarks that the “declaration is unshakable” obviously indicated that the Court was not expecting a respectable expert opinion. It was evident that the Court put pressure on the “expert witnesses” before the process of expert opinion began.
They might have only needed their favorite scholars who affirm claims by the Court, in order to silence psychiatrists’ opinions submitted by the defense attorneys one after another.
Friday, February 9, 2018
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
＃13 Psychiatrists’ written opinions
After the press conference, the Court continued to ignore our father's condition without hesitation.
"Mr. Asahara is obviously ill. However, even the fact of illness will be wiped out unless we do something."
The defense attorneys' fear was quite normal. Both the Court and the Detention House deviate from their essential roles without any reservation.
While judges are not doctors, we are not doctors, either. It is more persuasive if psychiatrists meet and diagnose our father then write an opinion, etc., instead of amateurs like us making a fuss about "being ill".
The defense attorneys desperately searched for psychiatrists, and requested, "Please examine Mr. Asahara. If you feel he is malingering after you see him, we will accept it. Please write what you think as an opinion." Finding a doctor who writes an opinion was not easy, because it was "for Asahara". Yet, the defense attorneys did everything they could, and found psychiatrists who were willing to write opinions.
The defense attorneys requested to suspend the procedure of the second public trial on July 29, 2005.
Five letters were submitted at the time of this request, including opinions and supplementary letters written by two psychiatrists. It was pointed out in the written opinions: "state of serious prison reaction and confusion; no litigation capacity; possibility to be cured with medical treatment."
The Court made their move once again on August 19, as the defense attorneys' action might have annoyed them. It was unprecedentedly determined to have a conditional "expert opinion" to be obtained.
"Mr. Asahara is obviously ill. However, even the fact of illness will be wiped out unless we do something."
The defense attorneys' fear was quite normal. Both the Court and the Detention House deviate from their essential roles without any reservation.
While judges are not doctors, we are not doctors, either. It is more persuasive if psychiatrists meet and diagnose our father then write an opinion, etc., instead of amateurs like us making a fuss about "being ill".
The defense attorneys desperately searched for psychiatrists, and requested, "Please examine Mr. Asahara. If you feel he is malingering after you see him, we will accept it. Please write what you think as an opinion." Finding a doctor who writes an opinion was not easy, because it was "for Asahara". Yet, the defense attorneys did everything they could, and found psychiatrists who were willing to write opinions.
The defense attorneys requested to suspend the procedure of the second public trial on July 29, 2005.
Five letters were submitted at the time of this request, including opinions and supplementary letters written by two psychiatrists. It was pointed out in the written opinions: "state of serious prison reaction and confusion; no litigation capacity; possibility to be cured with medical treatment."
The Court made their move once again on August 19, as the defense attorneys' action might have annoyed them. It was unprecedentedly determined to have a conditional "expert opinion" to be obtained.
Monday, February 5, 2018
＃12 Desire for medial treatment led to….
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)