2008/04/22 Trans-Pacific Radio

Trans-Pacific Radio/Trans-Pacific Radio/Trans-Pacific Radio

http://s02.megalodon.jp/2008-0422-0011-16/www.transpacificradio.com/2008/04/19/serial-mutilator-hiroshi-nozaki-also-a-serial-killer/

Thank you for allowing my comment to appear on your blog unlike Mr Arudo's.
I really appreciate it.


But for some reason, the link to my blog have been deleted like Mr Arudo's http://pontasmemorandum.blogspot.com/2008/04/20080419arudou-debito_19.html


As can be seen on the record above, Handle is supposed to link to my blog, And in the comment below, I also included address of my blog.

Please feel free to comment on my blog.
I welcome different perspectives.
There is no pornographic content on my blog: almost all of them are the comments Mr Arudou has blocked.

If something is inappropriate with the content of my blog, please point it out.
I would really like to know it. I am asking Mr Arudou to tell me the reasons why he rejects a Japanese like me, and I am proposing to have a further discussion in a public forum again and again,but the only words he gave me was, in response to the comment blaming me ,

–Thanks very much. And to answer your first question, I don’t mind you replying. I wish more people would, to pedants and willful obfuscators like “Ponta”, whoever he is…I
http://www.debito.org/index.php/?p=1633#comment-141940

By the way I responded to the comment, calling for a further discussion,
http://pontasmemorandum.blogspot.com/2008/04/21arudou-debito.html
Mr Arudou blocked again.


Let's start a fair discussion between J and NJ.

Comment by ponta

April 21, 2008 @ 9:22 pm

On the whole I agree; the police should examine thoroughly if the man convicted might be a a serial killer or not.

However, there are small points I want to point out.

so when the police failed to force a confession out of him, they effectively had zero evidence to pursue the charge with. Instead he did three and a half years in the detention center for dismembering and abandoning a body.

Are you sure the police didn’t get the confession?
In trials it is not entirely uncommon that the accused either confesses or is tricked to confess, but he/she denies it at the court.
Besides, there are cases where the prosecutors go with the charge of murder without confession and the court find him guilty.
When the evidences are sufficient beyond doubt for murder, He is convicted of murder.
When the evidences are not sufficient beyond doubt for murder but sufficient for the destruction of corpse, he is convicted of the destruction of the corpse. This is often the case with the murder where after one killed the victim, another was asked to dispose of the corpse. The latter has no intention of killing and there is no fact that he committed the muder, so he cannot be convicted of murder but he committed another crime.

By the way in case of Mr Ibudor, he confessed in the investigative process that he poked his finger into the genitals of the alleged victim and it seems he didn’t deny it at the court according to the court text Mr Arudo publicized later.
Mr Idbor and Mr Arudo kept the confession hidden until pointed out. He now claims he was tricked on the letters he recently has publicized on Mr Arudou’s blog. I am not saying Mr Ibdour is guilty;I don’t know whether Mr Ibduor raped the alleged victims just as I don’t know if Nozaki killed the first victim. But I am suggesting the people concerned to give full explanation so that people may reach the truth. Rather than trying to hide the fact that is disadvantagious to the accused, I think it is much better to give the people concerned a chance to give full explanation. And to give full and fair explanation, you need to respond to different perspectives. Supressing them does not help.
I asked Mr Ibdor and his wife to speak out on my blog(http://pontasmemorandum.blogspot.com/)
Japan Probe or TPR in the comment but unfortunately Mr Arudou blocked it. Please inform his wife that he and his wife are given a full opportunity to explain it on my blog, or TPR.
I am telling this here because it is such an important matter

And now he’s killed again.

On the reasons given above I refrain from concluding he killed again. Even court couldn’t find the sufficient evidence. With less evidences available to us, what can we say?

There is a reason to think he had killed another woman, because it seems to be certain that he killed the woman this time.
But as you might know, this kind of inference is prohibited and therefore the evidence related to his past crime is prohibited from being brought in the court as a rule because that might give undue bias against the accused—-say, Tom committed a theft in the past, it does not follow that he committed the theft this time, but people mistakenly tend to think just because he committed it in the past he must have committed it again.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule, though. I am sure the U.S, evidential law has similar rules.

I agree that the police needs thorough profiling and recordings about the criminals so that we may arrest the killer and prevent him/her from committing another crime.
At the same time I understand the judge’s dilemma.
On the one hand he/she can’t take a risk of a false accusation and should stick with the principle that innocent until proved beyond doubt but on the other hand, still the accused might turn out to be a serial killer in the end.
Ono’s trial is a case in point.
http://mainichi.jp/select/jiken/judge/news/20080327ddm041040162000c.html
Ono was found guilty at the lower court but the higher
court reversed it on the ground that the confession was judeged as coerced. But five years later Ono committed another murder. It is most probable, according to your difinition, that he was a serial killer.

Trans-Pacific Radio/Trans-Pacific Radio/Trans-Pacific Radio