The
"Enzai (False Charge) - Kabutoyama Case"
Appealing for Innocence of the Alleged Defendants Yamada, Araki and
Tada
Chapter 1 |
Chapter 1 The "Enzai (False Charge) - Kabutoyama Case" Thus Happened
I-1. What is the Kabutoyama Case?
In March 1974, two children are found dead one right after another at the
Kabutoyama Gakuen, a nursing school for mentally handicapped children in
Nishinomiya, Hyogo Prefecture. First, in the afternoon of March 17, Mitsuko
(12, female) turns up missing. In the midst of frantic searching efforts,
two days later on 19th, another child named Satoru (12, male) is found
missing around eight o'clock by when he was supposed to be in bed. The
teachers on duty and other staff members including the defendants of this
trial who were in the school office hastily searches throughout the school
premises and rooms of Aoba Dormitory while asking the children if they
have seen Satoru. The result is the tragic discovery of the two childrens'
dead bodies in the school lavatory septic tank late evening of that day.
The deaths are due to drowning.
The Kabutoyama Case, thus beginning with the deaths of two children, is
an obvious false-charge or frame-up case where Etsuko YAMADA, a teacher
then, was accused of murdering Satoru on the grounds of scanty circumstantial
evidences. About the same time, School Principal Araki and Tada, Yamada's
colleague teacher who both witnessed for Yamada's alibi were arrested because
of perjury. All three of them have been bound to the defendants' seats
for many years until now.
After the first set of trials, the Kobe District Court issues a decision
of not guilty. However, the Osaka High Court overturns this decision remanding
the case back to the Kobe District Court as an inferior court. The trials
brought back to the Kobe District Court once again lead to the acquittal
judgment after an incredibly long and complex process of successive trials.
This acquittal decision is the one literally wrested by the defendant through
the longest trial in criminal case history of Japan (and the world). Notwithstanding,
the case is still pending despite more than two decades spent and despite
judgement of innocence made twice, just because the Prosecutors Office
filed an appeal to the Osaka High Court. Final decisions are yet to be
made before this court.
I-2. Environment of the Incident
Kabutoyama Gakuen where this tragedy happened, is a social welfare facility
located on the west side of Mt. Kabuto (elevation of 390 meters) on the
northern fringes of the city of Nishinomiya, Hyogo Prefecture. The school
complex is situated in a nice peaceful retreat whose pine-shrouded features
include a graveyard, a reservoir, a shrine and a picnic area.
There are total 79 residents in school, of whom 47 medium and lightly handicapped
children (31 males and 16 females) live in Aoba (Green Leaf) Dormitory
and 32 seriously handicapped residents in Wakaba (New Leaf) Dormitory.
The staff consisting of 30 persons is caring for these residents aged from
six to 24 years. They were admitted to this facility, leaving their homes
from many districts of Hyogo Prefecture, to receive academic education
while developing basic skills for living. Some schoolteachers are sent
from elementary and middle schools of the community to give academic classes
at the school building.
Daily life of Aoba Dormitory residents goes on in a fairly organized manner
under assistance and instructions of the dormitory staff. They follow a
set timetable of leaving bed at 6:30 in the morning, having meals, studying,
taking a bath, playing and going to bed at eight o'clock for younger children
(at or under the elementary school age) and at nine for the older (over
the middle school age). Such daily living aside, they have some seasonal
amusements such as sport meets, day trips, camping and year-end celebrations.
Yet they have few opportunities to leave the compound for communication
with community people and experiencing a life outside. They are rather
confined to the small world of their own in the school premises.
I-3. Why is Yamada arrested ?
The police note the fact that the two children disappeared one after another
and are then found dead in the same septic tank whose manhole was covered
with a heavy lid (17 kg). The lid was on the manhole when their bodies
were found. In view of this, the police identify the incident as a "murder
case" already next day and start investigation. Furthermore, according
to a newspaper report two days later, the police investigation headquarters
take to the "inside murder" theory from an early stage as there
is allegedly no trace of external trespassers. Obviously, the police made
a serious mistake in their investigation policy at this very early stage.
First of all, they concluded too quickly that the criminal must be one
of the Aoba Dormitory staffers who was present on the school premises on
both 17th and 19th. This means that any possibility that one or more children
may be involved in their deaths whether accidentally or for any other reason
is totally excluded from their interpretation. It is based on their preoccupation
that mentally retarded children are unable to commit any such crime. There
are also several other grave mistakes in their initial investigation process
including incomplete securing the spot of crime and extremely careless
ways of lab testing. These are mostly likely major reasons why the gate
to the truth of this case somehow seems permanently closed.
Police's investigation starts on the day of discovery of the bodies. The
police set up a "questioning room" in part of the school building,
where the staff members and the residents are questioned one day after
another. The questioning sessions often get into invasion of privacy with
the excuse of searching for alibi and motive of killing. Faced with police's
threatening that "someone in your workplace must be the murderer",
people are turning self-defensive against suspicion and also suspicious
of their colleagues. Staff members and even residents' parents become gradually
isolated from one another because of the dark feeling of fear and doubt
against one another.
After two weeks, the investigators begin settling on Yamada alone as the
most likely suspect. As soon as March turns April, some statements that
Yamada is doubtful suddenly come from some members of the staff, though
with no convincing grounds. Yamada's name is then mentioned in front of
a police officer for the first time on April 4. It is an "eyewitness"
given by the girl A (aged 11), which is followed by other residents' eyewitnesses,
though none of them has ever referred to Yamada when asked by the staff
members and parents about the incident.
The police give four reasons for their arrest of Yamada:
1. She was within the school on both of 17th and 19th.
2. She has no alibi during the "time zone of crime" which is
about eight o'clock in the 19 evening.
3. She looked hysterically disturbed when the bodies were discovered and
later at the funeral.
4. An examination record of resident A states that she witnessed Yamada
taking Satoru with her.
Despite the fact that all these are merely circumstantial evidence, YAMADA,
Etsuko is arrested on April 7 as a suspect of murdering Satoru alone.
I-4. Interrogations and "Confessions"
Yamada's arrest is based on an indirect evidence of the resident A's statement.
However, the fact is that she is arrested paradoxically because there is
no direct evidence against her. The police needed her arrest for coercing
her into "confession" and using it as powerful evidence.
Yamada detained by police is now subjected to brutal interrogations day
and night, for 10 or more hours a day, under the charge of murdering of
which she knows herself totally guiltless. Ten days later, she makes a
false confession in spite of herself, though quite fragmentally. The way
she is trapped into her false confession through the police's interrogations
can be described as follows.
Yamada was then 22 years old, a naive, socially inexperienced woman graduated
from the 2-year junior college course on the faraway island of Shikoku
only two years earlier. She has so far never had a hostile or bad feeling
against police, rather being trustful of them. It is not until she was
released after the lengthy interrogating detention that she learns from
newspaper reports that the police were lying to her. This is one typical
feature associated with Enzai (false charge) cases in Japan.
Questioning begins with the effort for undermining her alibi during the
"time zone of crime". "If you didn't do it, prove your alibi.
If you can't, you are the killer. If you can convince us of your alibi,
you'll be released", they insist. Yamada trusts that they will understand
if she tell them the truth and frantically tries to recall her alibi. The
investigators however demand her exact explanation of what she was doing
around eight o'clock in that evening minute by minute and second by second.
Can you recall what you did at an exact minute of one evening a whole month
earlier? Whatever explanation she gives fails to convince the investigators.
A sliver of time with blank memory for which she is unable to explain is
used to form the grounds for her commitment. They shout at her, "You
did it unconsciously, that's why you cannot recall." All these contribute
to confusing her memory. We can also imagine with ease how physically and
mentally consuming for her the first arrest experience in her life, day-and-night
vociferous interrogations, harsh living in the police station prison cell
etc.
While watching such conditions of Yamada, the investigators keep on pressing
her for confession, telling her mingled lies and truths such as "the
polygraph says you are lying", "a child saw you taking Satoru
out with you", "some threads of Satoru's sweater were found on
your coat", etc.
On April 17, ten days after her arrest, a final blow is struck against
her. It is the day when Mitsuko died one month earlier. After having her
father interview with Yamada, the police officers pronounce to her that
father is beginning to suspect his daughter. They also deceive that Principal
as well as her colleagues are suspicious of her. In so doing, they have
finally broken up her emotional ties with family and friends that were
so far comforting her heart in this ordeal.
"Here coming only evidences for guilty, and nobody any longer believes
in me", Yamada cries in the depths of desperation. Murmuring the words,
"I did it. I'll tell you everything tomorrow", she returns to
her prison cell and attempts a suicide by strangling herself with stockings,
though fortunately, this attempt is not successful.
"This cannot be a "confession"
Let us look at the statement made on April 17. This includes her first
"confession": "It's no one but me who killed Mitsuko and
Satoru by getting them fall through the manhole." It must be noted
here that the "confession" not only concerns the death of Satoru
for which she was arrested but also ascribes Mitsuko's death to herself.
Yamada is not the suspect of Mitsuko's homicide, and as will be later discussed,
the investigators themselves construed Mitsuko's death as an accident.
If Yamada were the real murderer, she could never make a confession treating
the both Mitsuko's and Satoru's "murder" cases in the same way.
Because she did not commit the crime and does not know the crime, she confesses
in spite of herself that she killed both of them without distinguishing
between the two cases, as all what she knows is that they were both found
dead in the septic tank.
Henceforth, her statements continue to immensely flip-flop. Sometimes she
completely denies her suspicion but at other times, she seems willing to
assent to the interrogators' story as if she feels completely indifferent
to her fate. The mood in her "confessions" thus fluctuates like
the waves of ocean.
The same record expressing: "I have no intent to cancel my statements
in the yesterday evening and the evening before yesterday" also contains
a denying phrase: "Now matter how I am asked about my motive, I have
no motive to tell you because I@didn't do it". While some passage
says, "I am grateful for the sincere investigation and examination
of you police officers'", the same record gives a grievous moan: "All
the evidences given by the police are adverse to me. Enough of this! Nobody
understands my true feeling. Ja, enough of this!" Alternate confessions
and denials - such disturbed responses themselves declare that she has
none such crime experience to "confess".
Going through these severest interrogations in the harsh condition of prison
cell, 23 days that are a maximum period of police detention have passed
and she is released at last. That is, no indictment is filed against her.
The Prosecutors' Office releases her due to lack of evidence. They admit
on their own that she has no motive to commit the murder and explains:
"She kept on denying before the prosecutors. While she seemed to have
confessed her commitment on some occasions at the police, her statements
are not entirely consistent and convincing in terms of her motive and way
of killing. This cannot be a confession."
This tells us all about examination and confessions she has gone through.
I-5. State Redress Trial
Three months after her release, Yamada and her codefendants files suit
for a state redress trial. The State Redress Act, enacted in 1947 under
Article 37 of the Constitution of Japan, provides in Article 1: "If
any public officer who is responsible for exercising the public authorities
of the State or a public corporation unlawfully causes damage to any person,
intentionally or by negligence, during execution of his or her duties,
the State or the public corporation are liable to redress the damage."
Relying on this article, they claim the damage caused by the police and
the prosecutors' office due to the injustice of their arrest and detention.
Yamada has suffered immeasurable stigmas through her arrest and detention
as, despite her obvious innocence, she was suspected of murder, arrested
and coerced into confession. She was exposed to false reports of media,
deprived of her job of teaching handicapped children which she was proud
of, had her human ties with the school residents undermined, and was despised
as a "murderer" even after release. Yamada decided to file suit
for state redress trial to demand the recovery of her own human rights
and dignity without silently bowing to her fate.
The appeal of suit claims a notice of apology to be given by the prosecutors
and police in newspapers and the payment of six million yen. The real objective
of the appeal is however to eventually make her innocence manifest before
the redress court while having the police and prosecutors concede that
this miscarriage was derived from unlawful and unjust exercise of their
authorities. This should ensure that sufferings as she experienced would
never happen again, Yamada expected.
The redress trial goes on in favor of the defendants thanks to the alibi
testimony made by Araki and Tada. The police and prosecutors stand at bay.
In February 1978, at the final stage of the redress court, prosecutors'
re-investigation activities are also about to close.
I-6. The Prosecution Review Commission and Rearrest of
Yamada
One and a half year after Yamada's arrest and release, in September 1975,
the Kobe Prosecutors' office announces to officially drop the case against
Yamada (not to indict her). The reason is lack of evidence. Besides the
absence of motive and the fact that her "confessions" deemed
unsustainable as discussed above, the prosecutors also refer to the resident
A's eyewitness. They state: "The resident's testimony that she saw
Yamada taking Satoru out lacks competency of evidence as it was found rather
ambiguous in the process of more scrupulous questioning." They admit
themselves that there is nothing that links Yamada with the crime.
All the same, immediately after their dropping the case, mother of the
deceased boy files a complaint with the Kobe Prosecution Review Commission.
The Prosecution Review Commission examines whether or not the non-indictment
of a person allegedly responsible for a crime is justifiable, upon complaint
of a crime victim or other person(s) involved. The district commissions
are established in more than 200 local communities across Japan, with their
members selected from the electoral roll by lottery. The commission hearings
request the prosecutors' office to submit necessary references and evidences.
Examining these evidences, the commission members also question the complainant
and witnesses to decide whether the non-indictment is justifiable.
The decision of the commission is not mandatory upon the prosecutors' office.
But when it announces that the prosecutors' decision is unjustifiable,
the Chief Prosecutor of the Office need to give reconsideration as to whether
the suspect should be indicted.
A notable problem with this system lies in that the suspect is given no
opportunity to defend him- or herself in the hearings of the Review Commission.
It is in effect a closed system where the suspect is kept away from any
information on details and result of the hearings.
In this Kabutoyama case too, Yamada herself and the witnesses for her alibi
were afforded no chance of explanation, not knowing even the fact that
the complaint was filed. The Review Commission announces that dropping
the case is unjustifiable through one-sided hearings only from the investigators,
prosecutors and the bereaved of the boy. Receiving this decision, the Kobe
District Prosecutors' Office starts investigation once again.
Two years and a half later in February 1978, Yamada is re-arrested for
the same suspicion of "murdering Satoru" as was cast four years
earlier. While the prosecutors claim that they obtained a new evidence
of "eye-witnesses of multiple residents", all other evidences
are exactly the same as four years before.
This time, Yamada definitely sticks to denying all through her questioning
process until she gets indicted.
It is particularly noted that on the same day, Araki, former Principal
of Kabutoyama Gakuen and another former teacher Tada who both insisted
on Yamda's alibi are arrested on charge of perjury.
I-7. Perjury as Another Frame-up
Perjury is applied to a person who made a false testimony against his or
her memory, experiences and objective facts despite the oath of "telling
the truth" before a public trial court.
Perjury alleged by the prosecutors is the testimony of former Principal
Araki and former teacher Tada for Yamada's alibi before the State Redress
court. This is simply against the truth because Yamada, Araki and Tada
were all present together at the administration office of school during
the time zone where the murder was allegedly committed.
On the day of March 19, Yamada and N return to the office around half past
seven in the evening. They have been distributing leaflets asking for whereabouts
of Mitsuko at a nearby railway station. There were Principal Araki and
Teacher Tada already at the office. The four people discusses how to search
Mitsuko. Meanwhile, Yamada comes up with calling for the search of Mitsuko
on the radio as she has some connection with the Radio Osaka broadcast
station. They quickly make telephone calls to an executive of Radio Osaka
at home and some directors at the station. Several calls are made and received
in the meantime.
Then they receive a call from Mr. H in question. Hanging up the phone,
Principal Araki hastily drives out of school to meet Mr. H for the matter
of Mitsuko's search. The phone call from Mr. H is at quarter past eight.
Both Araki and N are sure about the time as they checked with their watches.
This phone call from Mr. H, that is, the time when Araki departed from
school, is a key to Yamada's alibi. The prosecutors insisted that the murder
was committed during several minutes between eight o'clock and seven or
eight minutes past eight. On the other hand, Yamada was in the office in
company with Principal Araki and her colleagues Tada and N until Araki
left school, as testified by Araki and Tada at the Redress Trial. If the
phone call from Mr. H and therefore Araki's departure is past 8:15, Yamada's
alibi can be flawlessly established. This means that the prosecution's
dilemma lies in the testimony made by Araki and Tada who were in company
with Yamada in the same room. To get out of this dilemma, they commit a
horrible abuse of authorities by arresting the two persons thwart for them,
on charge of perjury so that they could seal their lips and have them change
their testimony.
They have never since changed their testimony of truth, and therefore are
still in the defendants' position.
Yamada, Araki and Tada are indicted. However, all of them are released
on bail prior to the start of trials. It is very unusual in Japan for denying
defendants of important crimes to be released on bail. This appears to
be another exceptional fact associated with this case.
We recognize that besides Japan, there are many other countries across
the world where the human rights situation is still underdeveloped. Let
us walk forward hand in hand until <human rights> developed by human
wisdom in our long history be shared by all human beings as global assets.
| Return to the Top of What is Kabutoyama Case |