Pathway to Japanese Literature

In the November 1st issue of Literary News that had been published earlier, there appeared a report by critic Mr. Satō Shizuo about his interview with the esteemed older brother of Miyahara Naoyuki, a defendant in the Mitaka Incident.
It was written that Mr. Miyahara Yukichi, who had initially been reluctant to meet or speak due to being wounded by commercial newspapers' methods, gradually came to understand Literary News' nature and began speaking piecemeal.
Within that account lay the following words.
"On August 8th, when I was first permitted to meet my brother," he recounted, "and told Prosecutor Kimura who was present—'Please handle this fairly'—the prosecutor flushed as if intoxicated, planted his hands on both hips, and declared: 'As the Miyahara case prosecutor, I cannot let this pass. Fabricating charges requires no special effort.'"
"After that," he added, "he said, 'Though things aren't proceeding as they once did...'"

My eyes were drawn back time and time again to the dark words spoken by this Prosecutor Kimura.
And gradually, this black thorn pierced deep into the heart.
That a prosecutor capable of declaring "Fabricating charges requires no special effort" to defendants' families can exist in today's Japan—what state of existence does this demonstrate to the world regarding us, the people, who must endure such conditions?

This summer was a hateful season thick with menace.
Regarding the Japan National Railways reorganization, the government—as if frightened by the menacing shadow of its own raised sword—prepared declarations of a state of emergency, claimed "the Communist Party intends to carry out a violent revolution in August or September," and rather crudely fostered an atmosphere of anxiety among the people through its intent to preempt resistance against itself.
The Shimoyama Incident was its prime example.
As for the Mitaka unmanned train derailment that occurred following the Shimoyama Incident—and how this resulted in unexpected casualties—even today, no credible facts have been presented to us.
Therefore, all conscientious people who feel responsible for making social statements grounded in truth regarding the Mitaka Incident are likely maintaining a cautious stance while carefully monitoring its developments.

As for myself, I continue wondering: What is this incident truly about? In the process of Japan's democratic revolution, the significance contained within this incident that occupies a chapter in that process is neither minor nor simple.

The Special Investigation Committee established by the government inherently possessed the nature of a body for special considerations, as became evident when observing its deliberation methods within the committee. Consequently, the Communist Party as a political organization could not always respond with the full frankness we might have hoped for in its manner of engagement. Outwardly, one might have perceived that they consistently adopted a somewhat defensive tone in their statements.
This did not leave a favorable impression on some honest, hardworking citizens.
The very existence of this Special Investigation Committee—through this single effect alone—served not insignificantly to support the anti-democratic government’s policies.

As a citizen and as a writer, I too had various feelings.
Yet Mr. Miyahara Yukichi's account published in Literary News bound me with decisive force to a stake of resistance.

“Fabricating charges requires no special effort.”
In this single phrase congealed bloodthirsty bestiality.
Of course this included the hundreds of thousands of victims under Japan’s former Peace Preservation Law, but also every person investigated under Japanese law for corruption, fraud, or theft—there was likely not one among them who had not heard these words from police or prosecutors.
Even Mitsudo Chūzō—a Doctor of Laws who had been a minister—was arrested and imprisoned around 1929 or 1930 in a corruption case, and after fighting vigorously to prove his innocence in court, wrote a book titled Prison Memoirs.
In it, he addressed both the essence of political incidents and the coercive authority wielded during prosecutors’ investigations.

Just because the Mitaka Incident was perceived by many reasonable people as something of an unclear nature, did that mean prosecutors were justified in "fabricating" charges? When each one of us, through some turn of events, became entangled in an unclear dispute, could we possibly have accepted being told by a prosecutor, "Fabricating charges requires no special effort"? As the people, we must not permit the fact that this inhuman statement—"Fabricating charges requires no special effort"—was being uttered by servants of power concerning the fate of the people. If people, with sincerity, declared their opposition to wars fabricated for the benefit of a minority and strove to protect the peace of the world's people that encompassed the Japanese people, then I believed that in today's reality of Japan, we had to thoroughly eliminate the most fundamental fabrications being imposed upon human rights—otherwise it would have been a lie.

My interest in the public trial of the Mitaka Incident became concentrated on a single clear focal point.
Throughout the entire process leading up to this incident's indictment, how did the prosecution team conduct themselves?
And it is imperative that how they will conduct themselves and wield the law from this point forward be sufficiently monitored.
No matter what the outcome may be, people want to know the true facts.
The facts.

——

November 4th, 18th, 21st, 25th, and 28th—the public trials for the Mitaka Incident proceeded. According to yesterday's 29th newspapers, the public trial had entered the stage of examining ten defendants as joint principal offenders and two individuals for perjury, based on evidence presented by the prosecution team.

Now, what scenes unfolded in these five court sessions held thus far—and how had the defendants presented themselves while making statements? How had the defense attorneys conducted their arguments?

On November 4th, the first day of proceedings, various newspapers reported a chaotic tableau: newsreel cameras and radio recording equipment had been brought into the courtroom; amidst dazzling camera flashes intermingling with a baby's cries, twelve defendants entered the chamber.
Around the day before, we saw in newspapers a photograph of barricades erected within part of the courthouse.
And we read an article conveying the prosecution team's confidence about the public trial.

However, as was already known, that first day of public trial concluded with noteworthy results.
The courtroom "ultimately did not proceed to the reading of the indictment and adjourned at 5:30 PM."
All eleven defendants excluding Takeuchi forcefully demanded withdrawal of the indictment when presenting their statements.
The reason given was that this case's investigation had been conducted through prosecutors' intimidation, arbitrary decisions, and underhanded tactics—human rights had been trampled.
Therefore, as defendants, they could not acknowledge factually baseless indictments against each individual—this being their shared intent.
The fact that Takeuchi Keisuke—the twenty-nine-year-old former inspector and defendant—repeatedly expressed bewilderment at today's courtroom absence of prosecutors who had directly conducted his interrogations, demanding their attendance instead of making statements aligned with the other eleven defendants, was reported in all newspapers the following day.
Of twelve defendants implicated in the Mitaka Incident, eleven were Communist Party members; Takeuchi was not.
Moreover, his position proved most complex among all twelve defendants.

Takeuchi Keisuke was arrested on August 1st.
Initially, he persistently denied any involvement in the crime itself until finally confessing to sole perpetration before Prosecutor Hirayama on the 20th of that month.
Then on September 13th, before Prosecutor Kanzaki, he asserted that he had not acted alone but was part of a joint principal offense.
He stated this to Prosecutor Aikawa as well, and after declining representation by attorneys from the Free Law Association on November 2nd, the first public trial commenced on November 4th.
(November 18, Yomiuri Shimbun) Among the twelve defendants, he alone had appointed three attorneys from outside the Free Law Association—Kaji, Kuribayashi, and Chono—and appeared in court.
In the courtroom on the first day of proceedings—where eleven defendants including Ishikawa and Kim indicted for perjury along with Free Law Association attorneys led by seventy-year-old Fuse Tatsuji fiercely denounced prosecutors' improper interrogation methods—only Takeuchi's attorney Kaji requested (5th, Yomiuri): "We must respect each defendant's human rights and not ignore their individual circumstances to paint them all with the same brush," owing to these circumstances.
Amidst defendants clad in work clothes over student uniforms or open-collar shirts, Defendant Takeuchi alone—wearing a proper suit with fastened jacket buttons and tie—sat formally in that day's photograph, hands clasped beneath his abdomen with head slightly tilted leftward in downcast gaze. His entire body's restrained introversion—markedly contrasting with other bench-sharing defendants' dynamic, somewhat agitated reactions—revealed a man acutely conscious of himself.

On the first day of proceedings, the eleven defendants stood one after another—each specifically citing statements prosecutors had made during interrogations to vehemently denounce the illegitimacy of these unlawful methods—until the entire courtroom became filled with voices demanding withdrawal of the indictment, "ultimately never reaching the reading of the charges."
The court adjourned, but "the courtroom that day presented such a scene in the spectator gallery—no jeers, no banners, no labor songs, just spectators earnestly taking notes—that one would question the necessity of the 'Audience Guidelines' posted on both sides of the chamber."
(November 8, Tokyo Shimbun)

What was the basis for the defendants’ collective denunciation of the indictment’s injustice?

I traced the defendants’ statements through the stenographic record of the trial’s first day.

During morning preliminary questioning, Defendant Iida Shichizo (32), former inspector at Mitaka Train Depot and executive committee chairman of its branch union—who had stood to declare, “As this trial is of grave importance, I request that the names of the prosecutors involved in these proceedings and those of the presiding judge and other judicial officials be disclosed”—a demand later formalized by Attorney Fuse—requested to speak again in the afternoon session and stated:
“As I initially asserted, Prosecutor Amano who interrogated me articulated most succinctly how this case differs from ordinary criminal proceedings.”
“This occurred precisely on August 8th—the day my indictment was decided.”
“To you who have interrogated me until now—as a prosecutor with years of experience—I implore you to attend the indictment decision meeting and voice your impartial opinion.”
“For this reason, I entreated you to fight.”
“I spoke these words through tears.”
“My heart overflowed.”
“At that moment Prosecutor Amano declared: ‘I too am an official of the Yoshida government.’”
“‘Therefore I cannot transcend this bureaucratic framework.’”
“These were his exact words.”
“I bear no connection whatsoever to this Mitaka Incident.”
“Nevertheless I stand indicted.”
“Through over a hundred days of imprisonment, I have come to recognize that Prosecutor Amano’s lament during that interrogation reveals this incident’s true nature.”
“What then constitutes this ‘framework’ of the Yoshida government? I am a laborer and member of the Japanese Communist Party.”
“The framework imposed upon us—the policy of Yoshida’s Democratic Liberal Party Cabinet—seeks to suppress labor unions through anti-communist national movements and oppress our Party.”
“This reality manifests clearly even in newspaper reports.”
“I have perceived this framework of anti-communist national movements for what it is.”
“Yet during interrogations they never intended to hear my testimony.”

"But the circumstantial evidence has already solidified—no matter what you say now, it’s useless."
“They’ve already determined it’s no longer a suspicion but a certainty.”
“Even if I say I didn’t do it, they’ve already decided I’m a joint principal offender.”
"Joint principal offenders face life imprisonment or the death penalty."
"When I asked exactly which part of me corresponds to those charges, they said, 'That's not for us to say—search your own conscience!'"
"I have no involvement whatsoever."
"And throughout these over a hundred days, this feeling—how could such idiocy exist, branding me a joint principal offender for actions I never committed?—persists even as I’ve maintained my innocence, even as they grabbed me by the hair and dragged me through Musashino City police station’s entranceway, even as I remain imprisoned through police authority."
"In this situation, no matter how much I proclaim my innocence, I can’t help but feel this anxiety—that this prosecutor will have me strung up by the neck as things stand."
"This internal struggle between these two feelings—it is truly grave."
"In conclusion, what I wish to state is this: those prosecutors who made us defendants are themselves in violation of the Public Servants Law and unpatriotic abusers of authority."
"I believe so."
"To the defense attorneys, I would like to add one more thing."
"I earnestly request your cooperation—not that you remain merely as defense attorneys, but that you act as prosecutors chosen by the people who truly safeguard Japan’s democracy and defend the Constitution, thoroughly investigating the truth about those defendants and compelling them to apologize before us."

Defendant Yokoyama Katsumasa (25), former driver and branch executive committee member: “They threatened me with every method imaginable—asking ‘Do you plan to pick a fight with the Prosecutor’s Office like some back-alley thug?’”
“Then they shouted violent threats—‘We’ll definitely have you killed through the law!’—to intimidate me, and finally tempted me by saying that if we told the truth, our seven-year sentences would be reduced to a third, and the time would come when we could return to society and thrive,” he testified.
The clarity of how Defendant Yokotani Takeo (27), former technician and branch struggle committee member—who had made a factually baseless confession late on August 15th—had his filial devotion and trust in the Party organization as a Communist Party member exploited by several prosecutors to drive him into rational confusion was further demonstrated when the recording containing his courtroom testimony broadcast the following day profoundly moved its audience.
Among the twelve defendants, the youngest—Shimizu Yutaka (20), former maintenance worker and executive committee member of the same branch—was the first to speak during the morning’s preliminary questioning.
“I request that you immediately withdraw this indictment.”
“I wish to address that point.”
“I was taught by my parents, my many mentors, and all my teachers to be honest.”
“And I have lived that way.”
“I have lived loving truth and justice.”
“However, on August 1st, I was arrested for a crime I did not commit, and on August 28th, I was indicted.”
“That is to say, the prosecution authorities—who must love truth and justice, serve as their ally and guarantor, and promote them—are indicting those who love truth and justice.”
“We resolutely refuse to accept such injustices.”
Then, in the afternoon court session, he—youthful in his student uniform—described how he had been tormented by the prosecutor’s interrogation for an hour.
“We are by no means demanding cancellation of the trial on empty grounds,” he stated, having been primarily interrogated by Prosecutor Izumikawa and Inspector Watanabe from August 1st to 15th regarding the union’s “cell meetings.”
And in response to the defendant pursuing the reasons for his arrest, they stated: “For investigators, the crux of suspicion constitutes confidential information.”
“We cannot disclose confidential information.”
Inspector Watanabe repeatedly subjected young Shimizu to demoralizing provocations.
“Look at that vicious method of the Communist Party!”
“Look at the Metropolitan Government incident.”
“That was your comrades who did it.”

“Your comrades did the killing, yet the Communist Party keeps propagandizing that it was the police who killed them.”
“Parents don’t take pleasure in their children going on about ‘for society’ or ‘for the world’ or whatever.”
“Parents are content merely being given three meals a day.”
“And if they can see their son’s face, that’s all they need.”
He spewed such violent threats.
“And then: ‘On August 15th, Yokotani-kun was driven into a disturbed psychological state and forced to make a baseless confession—since then, the coercion to extract confessions from us has grown increasingly harsh and intense.’”
“They laid out Yokotani-kun’s baseless confession before me.”
“I thought on the night of the 22nd.”
It was the night before he was indicted.
If I confess, and if I acknowledge Yokotani-kun’s baseless confession, I will receive extenuating circumstances.
“If I fight for the truth as truth, will I be destroyed?”
“I truly took Prosecutor Izumikawa’s words to heart.”
I thought I was done for.
But I resolved to die to protect the truth.

On the 23rd, Defendant Shimizu answered Prosecutor Izumikawa, who had said, “Well? Have you thought about it?”
“I thought.
“But no matter how much I think about it, I can’t tell a lie.
“Even if my comrades say anything, I will protect the truth to the death.
“If my comrades say that Shimizu did it too and I’m killed for that, then there’s nothing to be done.
“If there are people who say Shimizu did it, that must be because they’re gripped by fear.
“No matter what others may say, I cannot tell a lie.
“If those who confessed receive extenuating circumstances while those who fought for the truth are sentenced to death, then so be it.”
But surely human beings aren’t made to be that cruel.
Someday, they will say that Shimizu didn’t do it.
I said to Prosecutor Izumikawa for the last time, wringing out tears of blood.
“On the 23rd, I denied while wringing out tears of blood.”
Throughout this period, Prosecutor Izumikawa relentlessly repeated the words: “You’re ninety-nine percent doomed.”
Administrator Tsuge (Tsuwae), who had worked as part of the Special Higher Police since the Peace Preservation Law era, cited the example of Ozaki Hotsumi: “He ultimately vanished like dew on the execution ground.
He lived in truth.
He insisted on the truth to the end and lived by his own convictions.
And so he left behind a written record in prison.
Will you be written into a novel?
“I was told that much.”

Defendant Shimizu Yutaka concluded his detailed, impassioned statement as follows:
"There exists no young person in Mitaka Train Depot—not novice Party members, nor the young, nor those inadequately versed in Marxism-Leninism—who would derail trains within the yard to take lives while clapping their hands in delight over Japan’s bloody revolution."
"In Mitaka Train Depot’s cells, there is not a single such fool."
"Moreover, I am not one who would play the fool to that extent."
"I do not believe revolution can be attained through such extreme means."

“Our Marxist-Leninist party loves the working masses most profoundly, can rejoice most deeply in their happiness, and can grieve most acutely at their misfortunes.”
“We consider the loss of even a single member of the working masses to be our greatest sorrow.”
“Therefore, we can stand at the forefront of all people and fight.”
“How could we, as members of such an organization, possibly commit such a reckless act?”
“The actions of these prosecution authorities are no different from what Hitler’s Nazis once did.”
“In response to this, we will fight to the death with utter resolve.”
“No, everyone who loves Japan’s democracy will fight resolutely.”
“I want to declare this: The time will come when these fascist entities currently moving against democracy’s tide are thoroughly condemned and judged by all people worldwide who love democracy.”
“If Japan’s prosecution authorities are truly allies of those who love factual justice, they should immediately withdraw this indictment—one piece of this conspiracy.”

Ishikawa Masanobu (27), former Railway Technology Research Institute member, and Kim Ch'ŏn'gwon (31), former Santama Minpo reporter—both indicted for perjury—made the following statements.
“There is one thing I want to say.”
“That all testimony inconsistent with the prosecutor’s understanding constitutes perjury and deceit—against such dogmatic, authoritarian pronouncements, I feel heartfelt indignation.”

(Defendant Ishikawa) Next, Defendant Kim stated:
“We request withdrawal of the perjury indictment.”
“If prosecutors indict everyone who speaks out like this, the entire Japanese populace will be rendered speechless.”
“What does the prosecutor mean by this? You’re at fault for being too explicit.”
“When you tell me I should’ve been vaguer—does that mean you wanted me to tell the truth or lie? I demand clarification.”

In connection with this point, within Attorney Hayashi’s arguments during the afternoon court session, there was a section that particularly drew attention.
"This concerns the point where he disclosed that 'on October 27th, Prosecutor Ishikawa stated the following policy regarding the Mitaka Incident during a lecture on the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecution staff in the third-floor conference room of Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office.'"
"This means trials are evidence-centered, and applying for and conducting witness examinations in public trial proceedings is crucial."
"When the content stated by Witness A differs from Witness B’s testimony as asserted by the prosecution in such situations, one of them must constitute perjury."
"If Witness B’s testimony as claimed by the prosecution is correct, then Witness A—those who gave testimony favorable to the defense in court—can be arrested immediately as perjury suspects caught in the act."
"Moreover, failing to do so now would be extremely dangerous."
"Second, while one cannot conduct witness examinations regarding courtroom testimony during public trial dates, this is because Article 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires giving the opposing party prior opportunity to learn witnesses’ addresses and names."
"However, since witness examinations are critical, regarding this Mitaka Incident public trial, they likely intend to request many witnesses—but for crucial witnesses, they first bring them into the courtroom beforehand, complete witness application procedures mid-trial, declare 'the witness is currently present here,' and immediately begin examinations. I have heard this method allows advantageously conducting witness examinations."
"If we assume this true—and we possess substantial evidence it is—then even in post-indictment proceedings like this public trial, we must continue under prosecutors’ threats of perjury charges and immediate arrest."
"Under such prosecutorial threats, we absolutely cannot proceed with this public trial."
The Nippon Times reported in its November 5th edition that authorities had prepared between 120 and 130 witnesses.
When considering Attorney Hayashi’s arguments alongside this fact—how could people not be struck by doubt?

Defendant Iida mentioned during the second public trial session (November 18th) in court, “What I find particularly regrettable is the witness situation.”
“If I tell the truth, they charge me with perjury.”
“I have heard that those who can speak the truth are the greatest of heroes, but in reality, when summoned nearly thirty times in that atmosphere, you end up parroting the prosecutors’ words just to avoid perjury charges.”
“Those who told the truth are being charged with perjury.”
“This is not merely a question of whether I am found guilty or not, but a problem for all democratic people defending Japan’s democracy and for the entire citizenry.”

In the courtroom on the same day, Defendant Toyama also spoke as "one who regrettably could not endure to the end":
"The Ishikawa you depend on—we'll arrest him for perjury."
"They declared anyone obstructing this investigation would be arrested."
At that moment, my complexion changed.
What would become of me if that occurred?
If declaring white as white warrants perjury charges, who would attest to my truth?
Contemplating this, my resolve weakened."

The defendants spent the entire sweltering summer in prison amidst such mental anguish.

During his arguments, Attorney Hayashi stated that they had boarded up the windows—leaving only narrow gaps with glass panes that allowed almost no daylight—to prevent communication between defendants deemed principal offenders.
Moreover, they were not even permitted to read prison-issued books.
"Furthermore, prior to our arrival, even exercise—even that prescribed by the Prison Law—was absolutely prohibited on grounds of insufficient staff. Moreover, all external visits and care packages were strictly forbidden."
(From Attorney Hayashi’s statement, court transcript) This fact likely meant the defendants might not have even been able to read the Six Codes compendium.
(From Attorney Hayashi’s statement, court transcript) One could understand why the defendants—uninformed about the new Code of Criminal Procedure—were terrified by the prosecutor’s declaration that “we can secure convictions through mere assertions.”

At the first public trial session, those who advocated alongside the defendants for withdrawal of the indictment or stood for legal fairness and the protection of human rights were not limited to attorneys from the Free Law Association. Eleven attorneys, including veterans of the legal profession such as Masaki, Nagano, Wakō, and Yoshida, were participating in this public trial. These defense attorneys maintained that “in cases like this one—where defendants already suspect the spirit of the Constitution and new Code of Criminal Procedure is being trampled upon—we must scrutinize whether laws are being properly applied, and whenever we discover any inhumane acts or injustices, strive to rectify them.” “This must be monitored on behalf of the state from a public, societal position,” they declared, “apart from what any individual defendant may have done.” “This is our mission as lawyers.” “The essence of lawyers lies in freedom; they must not be bound by power or material concerns,” they continued. “It is not limited to power alone. They must never be swayed by public opinion or such things.”

(Attorney Nagano) “As the most crucial and grave issue facing judicial authority,” he argued, “the problem of illegal interrogations by prosecutors has arisen. As for whether such matters can indeed be overlooked—we deeply worry.”
(Attorney Yoshida Michirō, from the court transcript).
Attorney Inamoto Jōnosuke cited the words of Joseph Joubert, a philosopher from the time of the French Revolution, in his arguments. “If this case had at least been scrutinized under lamplight,” he contended, “that would be one thing—but listening to what the defendants have been saying since this morning, it doesn’t even reach that level.” “A mere firefly’s glow.” “I do not necessarily claim it is pitch-black—utter darkness—but be that as it may,” he concluded, “from the defendants’ scattered phrases since this morning, I have perceived that this case has not been examined under bright light.”
(From the court transcript) And he appealed to handle this case with the sincerity and discernment of Ōoka Echizen-no-kami—who declared during Japan’s feudal era that “even in those outrageous times when judges personally arrested and interrogated defendants under that preposterous judicial system,” his name became so synonymous with fair trials that “today not a single three-foot-tall child remains unaware of Ōoka’s justice”—as recorded in the transcript.

Attorney Masaki Hiroshi stated that same day: “While I oppose the Communist Party, I am even more opposed to declaring white as black. To use power to declare white as black is an act against humanity. [...] To wield authority in turning white to black is to scorn all humanity across the world. As a humanist, I believe I must fight against this—it is why I gladly take up the defense in Mitaka.”

Even so, what intricate circumstances underlay Defendant Takeuchi’s position when he stated that day—as recorded in the court transcript—“The prosecutors who actually conducted the interrogations naturally understand our situations best. Since one could discern [the truth] from their expressions and attitudes during those sessions, I sincerely hope at least one additional prosecutor involved in the investigations could be present here in court”?
Of the three prosecutors present in court, only Prosecutor Amano had participated in the interrogations.
Owing to prosecutorial solidarity, Prosecutor Tanaka—the lead investigator—along with Prosecutors Izumikawa, Hirayama, Tomita, Kimura, Yashiro, and Isoyama had disappeared from the courtroom.

Defendant Takeuchi, who had been arrested on August 1, confessed on August 20 that he had carried out the Mitaka train derailment as a solo act.

On August 26, when Attorneys Imo and Okamura (at the time, Takeuchi also had an attorney from the Free Law Association) met with Defendant Takeuchi at Fuchu Prison, the following exchange occurred between them.

“The other day, when we met before the detention disclosure hearing, I said I had absolutely nothing to do with this incident—but that was a lie. In truth, I was the one who set the train in motion.”

In response, Attorney Imo asked:
“Then why did you lie then?”

“I believed Mr. Iida and the others would be released soon and that I could keep hiding the truth,” he answered. “I resolved to tough it out and told that lie.”

“Yet even though this incident was entirely my own doing—carried out without consulting anyone—I believe Prosecutors Tanaka and Hirayama have been insisting since around August 15th that—”

“Yokotani, Toyama, and four or five others have stated they participated in the conspiracy. Day after day, late into the night, they pressed me—though I absolutely never acted with those people. Prosecutor Tanaka’s interrogations were coercive, trying to force the conspiracy narrative. When Yokotani and the others were subjected to this questioning, they couldn’t endure it—”

“I resolved that if innocent people were falsely charged because I kept concealing the truth, it would be disastrous—so I decided to speak honestly. Starting around 9 PM on the 20th of this month, I gave Prosecutor Hirayama a detailed account.”

“Furthermore, Prosecutor Hirayama and the others said: ‘No matter how much you deny it, under the new Code of Criminal Procedure we can convict through mere assertion. In this incident, Toyama, Tashiro, Itō, Shimizu—and later Iida too—participated in the joint conspiracy.’”

“This is completely untrue, but—”

“When they say they can make determinations without evidence—”

“If even Yokotani and the others—who’d done nothing—were falsely charged, I couldn’t bear it. The thought left me unable to sit still.”

With that, Defendant Takeuchi gave a detailed account of circumstances on the night of July 15.

“I acted from simple worker’s anger—to make the authorities reflect—and believed immobilizing the train would trigger a nationwide strike to defeat them. Had I known such tragedy would follow, I’d never have done it.”

“With five or six years’ driving experience, I thought under those conditions the train would derail near the ‘temporary stop’ zone. I didn’t imagine harm would come to the main line.”

During this meeting, Defendant Takeuchi—speaking as a laborer, and as a husband and father who considered his wife’s feelings and contemplated the future of his five children—gave voice to his tormented heart.
(Based on Attorney Okamura’s notes)

However, Defendant Takeuchi, pressured by Prosecutors Kanzaki and Aikawa’s interventions, began wavering upon entering September—his uncertainty intensifying at an accelerating pace until he shifted to asserting that he had acted as a joint principal offender with the other defendants.
On two occasions—the 5th and 24th of October, and at month’s end—Judge Aikawa of Hachioji District Court compelled him to “give sworn testimony” regarding his relationship with the other defendants.
This was recorded in the deposition.
On November 2nd, with the first public trial imminent, Defendant Takeuchi rejected the Free Law Association attorneys, stating he desired no counsel holding differing ideologies.
When Defendant Takeuchi—having appointed Attorneys Kaji, Tsunono, and Kuribayashi—appeared in court on November 4th and saw his coworkers’ faces for the first time in three months, he could not help but form some reflection upon his own interrogations and precarious position as they stood one by one to detail the prosecutors’ unjust interrogation methods and demand withdrawal of the indictment.

On November 15, the Yomiuri Shimbun devoted nearly three full pages to publishing the contents of what it called "written statements"—titled "The Full Picture of the Unmanned Train Derailment," "Confessions and Errors: My Labor Movement and Takeuchi’s Petition as a Human Being," and "Instigated by Yokotani: Two Men Entered the Driver’s Cab."

“I was in fact deeply troubled during the first public trial session on November 4 about which path represented the truth for me.”
“Am I innocent?”
“Because all three possibilities—whether I acted alone, in collusion, or was innocent—had become entangled in my memory.”

The lengthy petition—which began with such opening phrases as struck readers as peculiar—was concluded in a format reminiscent of past conversion petitions, containing denunciations of the Communist Party and the declaration that “all punishment is divine will, beyond the reach of human wisdom.”
“And hereafter, I have resolved to live on for the sake of the nation with a renewed soul.”
“If there are still those who prattle on about past labor movements (particularly in the National Railways), they are a class that needlessly stirs up trouble only to consider their work done—such matters should be left to so-called revolutionaries, I think.”
It was concluded with, “Now I can only regret my own foolishness.”
And yet, at the beginning of that written petition composed by Defendant Takeuchi—which described his own conflicted psychological state—there appeared an uncharacteristically vivid and detailed site diagram, complete with numbered annotations.

With the second public trial session scheduled for November 18, Defendant Takeuchi’s written petition had been sensationalized through Yomiuri Shimbun’s distinctive style—but on the morning of the following 16th, Mainichi Shimbun published separate articles titled “Two Enigmatic Statements” and “The Shifting Sentiments of Defendant Takeuchi.”
On the afternoon of November 15, when Defendant Takeuchi met with Attorney Kuribayashi at Fuchu Prison, he submitted a second written statement differing from the first one, declaring, “The statements I made in my previous written petition have been incorporated into the deposition, but I’ve become unable to discern how much of it is true.”

"(Omitted) The matters I described above have already been incorporated into both the prosecutor’s deposition and Judge Aikawa’s deposition."
"And as for how much of that is true—having largely adjusted my statements to match the prosecutors’ questioning over time—I’ve become unable to discern."
(omitted) After being pressed for over a month,
"Rather than becoming a volunteer prisoner alone,"
"I began deluding myself that sharing the burden among everyone amounted to the same thing. On October 13th, I resisted for two days—but when handed paper and pencil, I wrote fluently from the same mindset as when making my solo confession."
"The next day, I regretted implicating my comrades—had it been just myself, that would’ve been one thing—and desperately pleaded for retraction, but…"
“I begged them to rescind the petition to save my soul rather than my life, but it was futile.”
"Even in my August 20th account of acting alone, I repeatedly adjusted my statements about imagined actions to align with what prosecutors said."
(11/16, Mainichi Shimbun) Defendant Takeuchi had based his statements on newspaper reports imagining arrests and train schedules observed during his shift.
"I feel as though I’m digging my own grave with these hands."
“Even now, I believe I could retract what I told prosecutors—but above all, having my deposition taken by Judge Aikawa remains my greatest torment.”
(Same day, same newspaper)

The successive publication of Defendant Takeuchi’s two written statements—containing diametrically opposed accounts—had stirred turmoil, and by the time of the second public trial session on November 18, the courtroom brimmed with heightened tension.

At the first public trial session on the 4th of last month, the prosecutor team had remained completely silent in response to the courtroom-wide demands for indictment withdrawal. Now during this day's session, Chief Prosecutor Katsuta—with head bowed—stood to emphasize the indictment's legality, adding: "Should similar disruptions occur again despite this statement, we will formally object and make necessary remarks regarding them."
(19th, Mainichi)
During the morning session of this day’s trial, demands to withdraw the indictment continued from the previous session; however, the prosecutors rose from their seats and obstructed Special Attorney Suzuki’s statements fifteen times.
The presiding judge said to Prosecutor Katsuta, who had been persistently pressing him: "You may raise objections to statements, but you must not interfere with those who are speaking."
(Trial transcript) The defense team’s elder statesman, Attorney Nagano Kunisuke, also admonished them: “I particularly wish to address the prosecution team—the fact that during these proceedings, you have been making statements amounting to obstruction demonstrates that you do not trust this court.”
"...and so forth," he admonished.

The Nippon Times described these circumstances as "the farce of a second public trial," writing that "the courtroom had become a miniature parliament."

In the afternoon, the indictment was read aloud by Prosecutor Kawaguchi.
The nature of what that indictment contained has been faithfully recorded in the trial transcript.

“（Omitted）Regarding perjury—it mentions several others here as well. If you are aware of them, please state their particulars.”
Prosecutor Amano named Yokotani, Toyama, Shimizu, Miyahara, Ito, and Tashiro.
“That is all.”

“Regarding Kiyan and about ten others listed here—what do you say?”
Prosecutor Amano listed five additional names beyond the eleven excluding Defendant Takeuchi, stating, “I believe that should be all.”

Attorney Fuse began questioning inconsistencies in the indictment dates across defendants and ambiguities within the document's wording.
"Was this indictment conducted with a comprehensive grasp of the incident's full scope?"
"First, I wish to clarify this point."
"The indictment fails to specify how thoroughly the incident's entirety was understood during the initial prosecution phase, nor does it establish whether the train's dispatch resulted from individual intent or collaborative conspiracy."

Attorney Kuribayashi also inquired about the meaning of terms such as "conspiracy" and "collusion" in Defendant Takeuchi’s indictment.

The Presiding Judge: “Do you not understand now? When and where was the conspiracy?”

Prosecutor Katsuta: “From July 10th to around the 15th. At locations such as the old train car intended to be Maintenance Station No. 2 within the Mitaka Train Depot grounds, the labor union office or its vicinity, and Takaisogata, among others, conspiratorial meetings were held repeatedly on multiple occasions.” (Defendants’ seats erupted in derisive laughter)

The Presiding Judge: “The indictment states that Defendant Iida conspired with others, but was this unclear at the time of prosecution?”

Prosecutor Katsuta: “As we had already arrested the seven individuals indicted in the first instance on August 1st, we were aware of this complicit relationship.”

The Presiding Judge: “I take it you had a general understanding of this when filing the indictment on August 8th.”

Prosecutor Katsuta: “Because we had arrested them, we thought they were accomplices and indicted them.”

Attorney Hayashi requested an explanation regarding the facts, locations, and individuals involved in the conspiracy.
Following Prosecutor Katsuta’s response to that,

The Presiding Judge: “Could you elaborate further on this point?”

Prosecutor Katsuta: “Such a plan emerged from the prevailing mood as a whole.
“The defendants did not all gather together in one place.”
(The defendants’ seats shook as they burst into laughter.) (Omitted)”

“It appears that when, where, and who met whom remains undetermined.”
“What the prosecutor asserts boils down to this: over several days, multiple individuals held conspiratorial meetings across various locations.”

“The indictment states all defendants and union members attended the July 15th meeting—but specify exactly which union they belonged to and who precisely was present?”

Prosecutor Katsuta: “Such matters need not be addressed.”

Attorney Yoshida (shaking his white-haired head and banging the desk): “I’m asking precisely because it’s necessary.”

The second public trial session was adjourned following the reading of such an indictment and the defendants Iida, Toyama, and Shimizu’s denial of the charges.

The third public trial session convened on November 21. After the presiding judge made a statement regarding maintaining courtroom decorum, proceedings continued from the previous session with Defendant Yokotani’s formal denial of the charges against him.
After his approximately one-hour statement, Defendant Takeuchi, neatly suited, took the witness stand.
The news camera lights were all focused on him at once.
He remained calm and spoke in a clear, slightly brisk tone: “According to the indictment, this was carried out through a joint conspiracy, but I alone am responsible.”
“It was neither due to incitement by Mindo or the Communist Party, nor was it a conspiracy by the Yoshida Cabinet or Mr. Mitamura.”
“Even if I were to keep my life and grow old and decrepit in prison, I would surely come to regret not having told the truth when I had the chance. That is why I have stated the truth here.”
Takeuchi’s statement lasted a mere five minutes.
In the gallery, Defendant Takeuchi’s wife Masae-san huddled with a handkerchief pressed to her face. When news cameras focused on her, Defendant Ito’s wife—sitting in front—leaned out with the child she was holding to shield her from view. Meanwhile, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun and Mainichi cameras captured Defendant Yokotani behind the witness stand where Takeuchi stood giving his testimony, weeping into his handkerchief.

“The indictment states you did it with Yokotani. What do you say to that?”

Defendant Takeuchi: “That is mistaken.
I did it entirely on my own.”

“Did you move the train by yourself?”

Defendant Takeuchi: “Yes.”

It was noteworthy that the Yomiuri Shimbun, which had given extensive coverage to Defendant Takeuchi’s written confession asserting joint principal offenders on the 15th, treated that day’s trial proceedings with extreme brevity and published an article omitting a particular statement—one recorded by the vast majority of other newspapers from the beginning of Defendant Takeuchi’s testimony—that “this was neither due to incitement by Mindo or the Communist Party, nor was it a conspiracy by the Yoshida Cabinet or Mr. Mitamura.”
The radio news broadcast that same day deleted the portion from Defendant Takeuchi’s statement regarding it not being due to the Communist Party’s incitement.

The prosecutors, who had maintained an extremely passive stance since the first day of the trial, appeared in court on this day of the fourth public trial session (November 25) with a calculated posture. Prosecutor Kawaguchi stood and declared: “(1) The prosecution has absolutely not conducted torture or human rights violations. (2) They slander prosecutors, judges, and courts by fabricating exaggerations and distorting facts, then propagate these claims at public rallies. This constitutes crimes of insult, defamation, extortion, intimidation, and other such offenses. We intend to take resolute measures at an appropriate opportunity.” He then enumerated points including “(3) this courtroom being dominated by dozens of defense attorneys and two-thirds spectators” as part of a demonstrative show of force.

“What do you mean by ‘dominating the courtroom’?”

Prosecutor Kawaguchi: “It means they hold a majority.”
The Presiding Judge: “The expression ‘dominating’ is improper. You will retract it.”
Prosecutor Kawaguchi: “If it’s judged improper, I shall retract it.”

However, when the afternoon court session commenced, yet another unforeseen development occurred that day. As statements from each lead defense attorney began following the defendants', a problem arose regarding who exactly served as Defendant Takeuchi's principal counsel. Defendant Takeuchi responded to the Presiding Judge's inquiry with these words:
"I told Prosecutor Hirayama I'd acted alone in committing the crime, but after Prosecutor Kanzaki took charge, he pressured me into claiming it was a joint act. What's more, Prosecutor Kanzaki said there were attorneys from the Free Law Association who'd fight tirelessly on my behalf. Feeling too ashamed to face Attorneys Konno and Ozawa whom I'd originally requested, I submitted their dismissal notice. Even now, I want to retain Attorneys Konno and Ozawa."

In the evidentiary phase that would continue through dozens of sessions to come, how would the 120 to 130 witnesses being summoned intertwine with the prosecutors' witness manipulation tactics—brandishing perjury charges as exposed during Attorney Hayashi's arguments—and what scenes would unfold in the courtroom?
The crucial point that public opinion must keep monitoring impartially would begin unraveling from this juncture onward.

When we speak of the Dreyfus Affair, there is no one who views Zola's involvement and struggle with contempt.
Modern French literature does not shy from acknowledging how this incident marked a pivotal moment in Anatole France's intellectual development.
Yet even that Dreyfus Affair—when newspapers inflamed public resentment by sensationalizing both fact and fiction—remained but one sordid provincial episode in France, much like Cézanne's derisive jab at Zola for "meddling in such affairs."

[January 1950]