When We think about it now, our father might have begun to deteriorate since October 1996. Nevertheless, judges for the first court claimed that he insulted the courtroom and ordered him to leave many times. The mass media observed the scene and wrote that our father was malingering, which jeopardized his personality. In those days, he would have already lost the ability to understand where he was and what he was doing.
Why didn't We recognize this? Why did We believe in his malingering, just crossing our arms to see him deteriorate? We could have confirmed his medical condition with the defense team for the first court, and why didn't We do that? Admitting that We were still a child, We were silently looking at our father's deterioration in the general mood of the people as well as with sentiments as his daughter who wished that he were not actually ill.
It has already been five years since We lost privileges to visit our father. We really regretted about leaving him to the state of insanity. Even now, our father is left alone in darkness on the other side of the thick wall of visitation refusal. We cannot just sit still and watch any longer.
Psychiatrists who examined our father agreed to the possibility of healing with medical treatment. Despite such comment, he is left alone without receiving medical treatment.
What can We do now? We believe it is to publicize the bare truth about our father We saw. Whatever label is placed, our father is not malingering. He is in a state of insanity, requiring medical treatment. Even though nonexistent vision is pushed on him, total blindness of our father is not a mistake.
Our father in our mind is not a prisoner sentenced to death. It is because We believe the default judgment granted on our father is invalid.
However, it is not our desire to claim our father’s innocence. Since he was not allowed to stand trial and has never talked about the incident with his mouth, We do not know how he is involved in the incident.
All We hope is for our father to receive medical treatment and speak the truth. The trust about the so-called Aum incident has not been clarified because our father was not able to speak at all. We would like to hear what happened from his mouth. If We don't do anything, the incident will be weathered with the truth unknown. No lessons will be learned, and recurrence of similar incidents cannot be prevented.
We would also like to know the truth about why it was not even possible for our father to receive medical treatment.
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Sunday, March 11, 2018
＃29 "Your father can actually see, right?"
How about the mass media? They created our father's figure as a dictator like a demon, and vicious and scrubby man who had no hesitation to engage in malingering. Such a figure is contrary to a disabled person who is completely blind. In addition, if they acknowledge him as a disabled person who is completely blind, the mass media would doubt the approach, etc. taken by the Court. The mass media made up our father as a "person with vision" without investigating him, in order to protect the figure they created and also to turn their eyes away from their responsibility.
I was interviewed by the mass media many times. There was always the same conversation during the interview.
"Your father can actually see, right?"
"No, he is completely blind."
"He can see, right?"
"He cannot see anything since We were a child."
When We answered this, media people suddenly lost their interest. Our comment about total blindness was never reported. Our father's total blindness was precisely the fact that they had to hide.
I was interviewed by the mass media many times. There was always the same conversation during the interview.
"Your father can actually see, right?"
"No, he is completely blind."
"He can see, right?"
"He cannot see anything since We were a child."
When We answered this, media people suddenly lost their interest. Our comment about total blindness was never reported. Our father's total blindness was precisely the fact that they had to hide.
Friday, March 9, 2018
＃28 Is he healthy or in need of care?
The Tokyo Detention House literally monitors our father 24-hours a day. It is impossible for them not to recognize his complete blindness, particularly if there is a physical examination.
The Tokyo Detention House forced our father to use a wheelchair in April 1996. It was because he is unable to walk like a healthy person, requiring employees' assistance as well as more time to move. The Detention House rejected the wish of our father who desired to walk, telling him that he needs to use a wheelchair as long as he is unable to walk in the same way as other prisoners.
It might be hard to imagine this for people who have a normal life, but opportunities to walk is very important for those imprisoned in a detention house. Nevertheless, our father was forced to use a wheelchair as a disabled person and deprived of his important "feet".
On the other hand, if they publicly consider our father as having vision rather than being "blind", they can impose a penalty any time on the grounds of his unwillingness to do the same things as healthy people.
Regarding the incident when our father was punished because he flushed the toilet at night, it seems like there is always someone who uses the flushing device of a toilet at night according to someone else at the Tokyo Detention House who said that he should not be "punished because of this". If this is true, our father was falsely accused and punished.
The Tokyo Detention House forced our father to use a wheelchair in April 1996. It was because he is unable to walk like a healthy person, requiring employees' assistance as well as more time to move. The Detention House rejected the wish of our father who desired to walk, telling him that he needs to use a wheelchair as long as he is unable to walk in the same way as other prisoners.
It might be hard to imagine this for people who have a normal life, but opportunities to walk is very important for those imprisoned in a detention house. Nevertheless, our father was forced to use a wheelchair as a disabled person and deprived of his important "feet".
On the other hand, if they publicly consider our father as having vision rather than being "blind", they can impose a penalty any time on the grounds of his unwillingness to do the same things as healthy people.
Regarding the incident when our father was punished because he flushed the toilet at night, it seems like there is always someone who uses the flushing device of a toilet at night according to someone else at the Tokyo Detention House who said that he should not be "punished because of this". If this is true, our father was falsely accused and punished.
Thursday, March 8, 2018
＃27 Reasons to assume that he has vision
We wonder, however. Our father does not gain any benefits by pretending to be completely blind, while those who assumed that he has vision might have gained some benefits by assuming it.
After his arrest, the mass media continued sensational reports with our father as the key plotter of a violent crime, and the Court was exposed to the pressure of public opinion calling for "quick conclusion of trial" and "quick execution". Whether or not our father was disabled or ill, the Court had to finish this trial drama by all means. Trials in Japan in those days took long because of the system. It took more time for serious cases with more points in dispute, and it was not rare to take 10 years or longer until judgment was made for the first court. Since our father was prosecuted for total 13 cases, it would take 20 years or 30 years if the trial progressed normally.
Our father is blind; therefore he cannot execute a crime. Therefore, he was positioned as a key plotter who secretly gave instructions behind the scenes for all cases. There was almost no material evidence that indicated our father's instruction on these cases, and all that was available was confession of people who were believed to be his accomplices. As our father is pleading his innocence, it was expected to take many years.
In addition, our father is blind and not able to read the documents that describe investigation details on accomplices by prosecutors and police officers. Therefore, the defense attorneys would read them to him at the time of visitation. However, documents relating to our father's case were in massive volume with the size of ○ meters x ○ meters and the height of ○ meters, and it was impossible to read everything during visitation in a limited time. * Need to add.
Nevertheless, the Court boldly said,
"This is a high-profile case in the world. We hope to conclude the trial as quickly as possible. The Court is aiming to issue a ruling within five years",
even before the procedure at the first court began, without considering the situation that our father is blind. It is a rule in Japan that judges may not be exposed to information or news on the case at places other than the courtroom, for the purpose of the trial to be on fair grounds. Though judges were supposed to eliminate preconception because of their position, conclusions had already been made so that the fixed time had to be determined prior to trial. If our father was really the key plotter as reported by the mass media, there must be ample evidence and they could have found him guilty without difficulty just by taking a straightforward procedure.
As a result, my father's trial progressed in his absence as the defendant. When he collapsed mentally and made so-called "irregular speech", he was made responsible as dishonoring the courtroom and ordered to leave many times. His behavior was reported by the mass media as a "sneaky person who tries to escape death sentence by malingering", contributing to the audience rate and sales increases. Actions by the Court were approved by the mass media.
Let us consider what if our father was completely blind. If he were completely blind, it would take time for fact-finding including our father's role in the case. If it takes time, the Court is criticized by the mass media. If they are attentive to provide the care necessary for disabled people to our father who is completely blind, we won't know how the mass media would criticize the Court.
As We see how our father was handled after his arrest, We feel that he had to have vision.
It might also be because defense attorneys selected by the government did more than expected and tried to bring in a verdict of not guilty. The chief defense attorney (when two or more defense attorneys are appointed, one chief defense attorney needs to be appointed as a representative) ended up getting arrested during trial for this fabricated case.
After his arrest, the mass media continued sensational reports with our father as the key plotter of a violent crime, and the Court was exposed to the pressure of public opinion calling for "quick conclusion of trial" and "quick execution". Whether or not our father was disabled or ill, the Court had to finish this trial drama by all means. Trials in Japan in those days took long because of the system. It took more time for serious cases with more points in dispute, and it was not rare to take 10 years or longer until judgment was made for the first court. Since our father was prosecuted for total 13 cases, it would take 20 years or 30 years if the trial progressed normally.
Our father is blind; therefore he cannot execute a crime. Therefore, he was positioned as a key plotter who secretly gave instructions behind the scenes for all cases. There was almost no material evidence that indicated our father's instruction on these cases, and all that was available was confession of people who were believed to be his accomplices. As our father is pleading his innocence, it was expected to take many years.
In addition, our father is blind and not able to read the documents that describe investigation details on accomplices by prosecutors and police officers. Therefore, the defense attorneys would read them to him at the time of visitation. However, documents relating to our father's case were in massive volume with the size of ○ meters x ○ meters and the height of ○ meters, and it was impossible to read everything during visitation in a limited time. * Need to add.
Nevertheless, the Court boldly said,
"This is a high-profile case in the world. We hope to conclude the trial as quickly as possible. The Court is aiming to issue a ruling within five years",
even before the procedure at the first court began, without considering the situation that our father is blind. It is a rule in Japan that judges may not be exposed to information or news on the case at places other than the courtroom, for the purpose of the trial to be on fair grounds. Though judges were supposed to eliminate preconception because of their position, conclusions had already been made so that the fixed time had to be determined prior to trial. If our father was really the key plotter as reported by the mass media, there must be ample evidence and they could have found him guilty without difficulty just by taking a straightforward procedure.
As a result, my father's trial progressed in his absence as the defendant. When he collapsed mentally and made so-called "irregular speech", he was made responsible as dishonoring the courtroom and ordered to leave many times. His behavior was reported by the mass media as a "sneaky person who tries to escape death sentence by malingering", contributing to the audience rate and sales increases. Actions by the Court were approved by the mass media.
Let us consider what if our father was completely blind. If he were completely blind, it would take time for fact-finding including our father's role in the case. If it takes time, the Court is criticized by the mass media. If they are attentive to provide the care necessary for disabled people to our father who is completely blind, we won't know how the mass media would criticize the Court.
As We see how our father was handled after his arrest, We feel that he had to have vision.
It might also be because defense attorneys selected by the government did more than expected and tried to bring in a verdict of not guilty. The chief defense attorney (when two or more defense attorneys are appointed, one chief defense attorney needs to be appointed as a representative) ended up getting arrested during trial for this fabricated case.
Monday, March 5, 2018
＃26 Also fell from stairs…..
It is generally reported in Japan that our father still has weak vision. However, he is totally blind as we wrote earlier.
Even Dr. Nishiyama, the expert witness for the Court, mentioned that the bulbar conjunctiva was cloudy like cotton, and there is no doubt about his blindness.
After he went completely blind, we as daughters were his caregivers and acted as his walking stick.
When we helped him walk, we needed to constantly tell him the course, e.g., "five steps until stairs, three, two, one, entering the stairs; six more stairs, three, two, one, end of stairs".
If we made a mistake with the number of steps or forgot to announce a small ledge, he would have an accident by falling off stairs, etc.
Care was needed not only for walking but also for showering, dressing and eating meals.
When our father lost his sight from both eyes, he tried not to let other people know about it as much as possible. However, as evidenced in the accident of his fall from a stage he went up on for preaching in the public, most people would have known his complete blindness if they saw him.
Honestly speaking, even we, his daughters, who was caring for our father did not know that he was wearing an artificial eye on one side. We came to know about our father's eyes in more detail after he was arrested.
Even Dr. Nishiyama, the expert witness for the Court, mentioned that the bulbar conjunctiva was cloudy like cotton, and there is no doubt about his blindness.
After he went completely blind, we as daughters were his caregivers and acted as his walking stick.
When we helped him walk, we needed to constantly tell him the course, e.g., "five steps until stairs, three, two, one, entering the stairs; six more stairs, three, two, one, end of stairs".
If we made a mistake with the number of steps or forgot to announce a small ledge, he would have an accident by falling off stairs, etc.
Care was needed not only for walking but also for showering, dressing and eating meals.
When our father lost his sight from both eyes, he tried not to let other people know about it as much as possible. However, as evidenced in the accident of his fall from a stage he went up on for preaching in the public, most people would have known his complete blindness if they saw him.
Honestly speaking, even we, his daughters, who was caring for our father did not know that he was wearing an artificial eye on one side. We came to know about our father's eyes in more detail after he was arrested.
Sunday, March 4, 2018
＃25 Is it possible to draw water from a water faucet and flush it to a toilet with your eyes closed?
The Tokyo Detention House claims that they are properly taking care of our father. Unfortunately, We are not able to believe it. They not only consistently claimed that our father was not ill without giving him medical treatment and left him until he had gone into such a condition, but also punished him because our completely blind father was not able to do things in the same way as healthy people.
One example is about the time when our father was still able to have conversation with the defense attorneys in summer 1996. There was a rule at the Detention House to draw water from a water faucet and flush it when using a toilet at night. This is probably for not making big noise. However, our blind father accidentally used the flushing device of the toilet. As a result, he was punished. Can this be a fair treatment to people with disability? We cannot deny the possibility that such treatment by the Detention House was involved in the process of our father becoming disabled.
One example is about the time when our father was still able to have conversation with the defense attorneys in summer 1996. There was a rule at the Detention House to draw water from a water faucet and flush it when using a toilet at night. This is probably for not making big noise. However, our blind father accidentally used the flushing device of the toilet. As a result, he was punished. Can this be a fair treatment to people with disability? We cannot deny the possibility that such treatment by the Detention House was involved in the process of our father becoming disabled.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
＃24 Cannot check out his clothes because they are soiled with feces and urine
The Tokyo Detention House has been refusing visitation because our father does not try to get out of the room on his own will from the beginning to now, as if he is responsible for everything.
We repeated visitation a few dozen times; however, were never successful in communication. No, our father never uttered meaningful words, nor responded to our words. It is impossible for him who is such a disabled person to refuse visitation on his own will.
As mentioned in the above, our father is even unable to control his toiletry duties. When visitation occurs, they would have to clean him who is covered by filthy matter, trim his beard and hair, and dress him before he is brought to the interview room. The Detention House might not want to do this either. Actually, our father was clean at the time of visitation, while our request to check out his clothes for laundry was refused because they are soiled with feces and urine and cannot be brought to the reception.
Checkout of belongings means that a person who is allowed to visit receives the belongings of the imprisoned person. Since they are received through the institution, not directly from the imprisoned person, we understood that they did not want to move our father’s very dirty clothes, or that they were too dirty to be moved.
We repeated visitation a few dozen times; however, were never successful in communication. No, our father never uttered meaningful words, nor responded to our words. It is impossible for him who is such a disabled person to refuse visitation on his own will.
As mentioned in the above, our father is even unable to control his toiletry duties. When visitation occurs, they would have to clean him who is covered by filthy matter, trim his beard and hair, and dress him before he is brought to the interview room. The Detention House might not want to do this either. Actually, our father was clean at the time of visitation, while our request to check out his clothes for laundry was refused because they are soiled with feces and urine and cannot be brought to the reception.
Checkout of belongings means that a person who is allowed to visit receives the belongings of the imprisoned person. Since they are received through the institution, not directly from the imprisoned person, we understood that they did not want to move our father’s very dirty clothes, or that they were too dirty to be moved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)