Summary of the Hakamada Case and Evidence
In 1966, Iwao Hakamada, then 88 years old, was sentenced to death for the murder of a family of four associated with a miso manufacturing company in Shizuoka Prefecture. A verdict in his retrial is expected on September 26 at the Shizuoka District Court. The defense argues for innocence, while the prosecution seeks the death penalty once again. Retrials are only granted when there is “clear evidence” of innocence, which suggests a high likelihood of acquittal, but the prosecution contends that innocence is not self-evident, drawing attention to the court’s decision.
Prosecution’s Position and Defense Counterarguments
The prosecution asserts that seeking the death penalty in the retrial is not about maintaining face. In May of this year, a prosecution official emphasized that the pursuit of the death penalty was not motivated by pride. During the investigation, five pieces of clothing alleged to have been worn during the crime were found in a miso tank. These garments contained a large amount of blood, which, despite being submerged in miso for an extended period, remained red, raising concerns of possible fabrication. In March of last year, the Tokyo High Court acknowledged the potential for fabrication by investigative agencies and decided to start a retrial in October.
In the retrial, the prosecution is focused on proving guilt again and seeking the death penalty. They argue that forensic experts testified that blood stains should generally turn black when immersed in miso for a long time, casting doubt on the evidence. However, the prosecution maintains that the defense has not completely disproven the possibility of the blood stains remaining red and asserts that the absence of new exculpatory DNA evidence does not invalidate their case.
Proving Ownership of the Five Pieces of Clothing
The prosecution has shifted focus to proving the ownership of the five pieces of clothing. They argue that if these garments can be shown to belong to Hakamada and to have been worn during the crime, it would support the case for his guilt.
They claim that a torn piece of pants found at Hakamada’s family home matches the hem of one of the five pieces of clothing, and the size corresponds to Hakamada’s build at the time. Additionally, they argue that holes in one of the shirts match injuries on Hakamada’s arms and that the blood type found on the clothing is consistent with his.
Fabrication Possibility and Prosecution’s Counterarguments
Another prosecution official stated that while each piece of clothing alone may not be decisive, considering all evidence together supports the claim that these were the crime garments and belonged to Hakamada. Nonetheless, proving that the clothing belonged to Hakamada is complicated by the possibility that investigative agencies fabricated the evidence.
A former prosecutor notes that the main issue in the retrial is whether the evidence was fabricated, rather than the redness of the blood stains. The prosecution has attempted to counter the fabrication theory by arguing that fabricating the crime garments was highly unlikely given the procedural history and logistical challenges.
Defense’s Counterarguments and Verdict Outlook
The defense argues against the prosecution’s evidence, pointing out that claims about the discovery of the “kurikiri” knife and injuries Hakamada sustained are unsubstantiated and not previously considered significant in past judgments. They argue that these points are being overstated by the prosecution.
While the prospects for an acquittal in the September verdict seem high, the prosecution maintains that despite issues with police interrogations, the evidence warrants the death penalty given the gravity of the crime and the number of victims.
The Hakamada retrial highlights issues of wrongful conviction in Japan’s criminal justice system and is expected to impact future judicial reforms.
Summary – Double Standards
Japan’s investigative agencies exhibit a peculiar logic:
- The presence of four victims
- The assertion that evidence implicates the accused
These two factors alone are driving the demand for the death penalty. Despite doubts about the evidence’s validity and low probability that Hakamada was the perpetrator, the investigation proceeded on the presumption of guilt, leading to an unjust confession and subsequent death sentence. There is skepticism about the reliability of witness testimonies surrounding Hakamada. The rationale of “four victims” and “existing evidence” does not justify the conclusion of guilt, and such predetermined outcomes in investigations and trials still persist in Japan, attracting growing public scrutiny and criticism.
Despite this, the investigative agencies resist change, prolonging the trial for 58 years and continuing to oppose reform as if waiting for Hakamada’s death.
Comments