Chapter 40 Section VI

As mentioned earlier, the main person in charge of the police in this incident is the Tamagawa Police Department.On this point, defender Gang Lin said: "Police Officer Tamagawa is the central figure in the investigation. It can be said that this person instigated Akama to confess. In other words, he was commended for his meritorious service in arresting the criminal in this case, and was promoted to chief of police. In order to find out the case To clear the truth of the defendants' grievances, it is necessary to examine the tasks this person has undertaken. "1. Destroy and fabricate evidence.

"The Yuchuan police station played the most important role in this aspect. The most important and most problematic physical evidence in this case is the monkey wrench. This man destroyed the monkey wrench himself. The most important thing for investigating the truth of this case The fact that the evidence of the use of the monkey wrench has been fabricated in this way has been destroyed. This has been discussed in detail above. "On the morning of the day of the accident (August 17, Showa 24), the Tamagawa police acted swiftly like a prophet before discovering the crowbar and wrench—ordering the unidentified person to know in advance that Matsukawa The road maintenance team was stolen from wrenches and other tools used to destroy the railway, and they were 'sure' of this; and after discovering the crowbar and wrench, they became very dull and did not start to act until the next day; and from the next day (August Since the 18th, the Songchuan Road Maintenance Team has been forced to be 'convinced' about this - all these are unexplainable mysteries, and they are places that contain major doubts about the truth of this case. Regarding this point, it has been mentioned earlier I said it.

"The testimony of the Tamagawa police station is full of doubts, and two or three of them are cited below to illustrate how unbelievable it is. "2. On the morning of the accident, what time did the Tamagawa police station be at the scene? According to the testimony of the Tamagawa police station, he arrived at the scene at around 6 am. But just study the content of the testimony, can understand that the time is obviously wrong; he has been on the scene at least around four o'clock in the morning. The accident happened around three ten o'clock in the morning, and he could not have arrived at the scene before then, but neither This is one of the unsolved mysteries, and it is as much a source of great doubt as the prophetic action." (Defender Gunlin's argument)

The defense side is not only challenging the prosecutor on this point. There is one more thing: an emergency alert will be implemented near the scene that night, but as mentioned above, the defender believes that this matter has no direct relationship with the defendant, so he did not mention it in his speech in court. There is an Otsuki silk forging shop in Kanayagawa.On the eve of the incident, the village's warehouse was broken into and stolen.The newspaper reported the incident, but did not link it to the "Matsukawa incident" at the time.It was not until I learned that on the night of the incident that many police officers had been deployed along the railway line and were on emergency alert, the two incidents were connected.

During the eleventh trial of the first trial, Sato Mori Yoshitobu (then the head of the security department of the Fukushima District Police Station) gave the following reply to the defender Otsuka's cross-examination: Question: Do you remember the duty of the witnesses on August 16 last year? Answer: I remember that I was at the Songchuan Police Station that day. Question: As a witness, did the chief of the security department call some police officers and take appropriate measures to arrest the criminal? A: No measures have been taken. Question: Was the witness in Songchuan that night?

Answer: I returned to Fukushima around 11 o'clock in the evening. Question: When you went back that night, hadn't the incident of breaking the warehouse occurred near Songchuan? A: I don't think such a thing happened. Q: Wasn't there an emergency cordon around Matsukawa that night? At this time, the prosecutor (Prosecutor Suzuki) raised an objection on the grounds that the above statement by the defender was irrelevant to the case and should not be allowed. Chief defender Otsuka immediately retracted the statement. The incident that the warehouse of Otsuki Satinso was broken occurred around 2:00 am to 3:00 am on August 16. From that night to the next morning (August 16th to 17th), an emergency cordon was set up. Exercise vigilance.It would be a different matter if this was done for the purpose of detecting a criminal who had become a victim; but it was unthinkable under ordinary circumstances.Moreover, it is noticeable that the chief of the security unit of the Fukushima Regional Police Station went out in person, and other members of the security unit acted as guards.Usually it is not the task of the security unit to detect thieves, but the task of the investigation unit.Responsibility for repression: It is also inconceivable that the security unit of the workers' and peasants' movement was mobilized.Surrounded by such an emergency cordon, isn't it strange that a train overturned unexpectedly happened!

It is also recorded in the above-mentioned court records that when the defender Otsuka asked, "Didn't an emergency cordon be set up near Matsukawa that night?", Prosecutor Suzuki suddenly raised an objection, saying that the defender's speech had nothing to do with the case and could not be tolerated, and asked him to withdraw the statement. .As I pointed out at the beginning of this article, the so-called "irrelevant to this case" reason probably means that there is no direct relationship with the defendant, so it is excluded. However, if all the circumstances related to the incident are excluded under the pretext of not being directly related to the defendant, then it is impossible to investigate the truth of the case.To understand the actual truth, it is impossible not to study the case material more extensively.However, in the current trial, it is said that it is a matter "outside the court", and it will not be considered.

Fumio Aoyagi, a professor at Sophia University, published the article "Research on the Hirotsu Commentary" on Mr. Hirotsu's book "The Matsukawa Trial".This article, by far the most systematic critique of the Hirotsu Review, includes a passage that says: "In his comments on this case, Mr. Hirotsu confuses the evidence with the statements of the defendants, trying to prove the truth with the defense of the defendants. In the interrogation of witnesses, he only uses the words of the interrogator to explain his own The judgment was correct. He analyzed the various confessions, but did not synthesize them. My intention now is to try to criticize this review on the basis of evidence with evidentiary weight. Again, I have only seen the records and have not I have not had any contact with the accused and the witnesses. I do not intend to judge data other than the records. In addition, I not only analyzed the evidence, but also tried to take citable information from the records for the background of the confession." ("Legal Work" The 34th September issue of the Magazine)

Mr. Aoyagi's evidence and records refer to those used in court.However, if it is limited to such a narrow range, it will be useless to find out the truth about other aspects, and the incident itself will be difficult to investigate.The truth should not be determined solely on the basis of judicial techniques.