Press "Enter" to skip to content

Hiroshima man denies killing woman, 35, despite DNA type match

HIROSHIMA (TR) – In 2001, a 35-year-old woman was killed in her house in Fukuyama City. A perpetrator entered the premises of Asami Oishi and stabbed her in the stomach with a knife.

On Thursday, the first hearing of 70-year-old defendant, Kozo Takemori, accused of murder and other crimes was held at the Hiroshima District Court. During the proceedings, Takemori claimed innocence despite a match of his DNA type with that found on evidence left at the crime scene, reports NHK (Jan. 30).

At the first hearing, Takemori stated, “I don’t remember [the matter], so I don’t know.” Meanwhile, his lawyer argued for his innocence: “He’s not the culprit.”

After the incident took place, the case remained unsolved for two decades. However, four years ago, Takemori, a resident of Fukuyama, was arrested and indicted on charges of murder and trespassing after it was learned that the DNA type of bloodstains left at the scene matched that of the defendant.

Kozo Takemori (X)

In their opening statement, the prosecution pointed out that Takemori bound the mouth and wrists of the woman at her home with adhesive tape, hit her multiple times in the head with a figurine and stabbed her with a fruit knife he had brought with him.

“The defendant emerged as a suspect after DNA testing took samples from him when he was arrested for a different crime,” the prosecution said. “Multiple shoes of the same size as the footprints left at the scene were found in the defendant’s home.”

In forensic DNA analyses, 24 specific locations on a person’s DNA are examined to create a unique profile. The prosecution in the Takemori case said that bloodstains found on socks and other items at the scene matched Takemori’s after four DNA analyses.

The defense countered by arguing that the results of the third analysis showed two discrepancies in the 24 locations. They argued that the bloodstains did not belong to Takemori.

“The DNA type of the bloodstains left at the scene does not match that of the defendant in some parts,” the defense said. “So, it cannot be said that they belong to the same person.”

The biggest point of contention in the trial will be whether the DNA testing results can be used to call the defendant the culprit. The verdict is scheduled to be handed down on February 12.