Prosecutors had their hands full in the trial for the murder of Tatsunari Ito, who was lynched by a group of seven inside a bar in Nishi Kawaguchi, Saitama Prefecture in 2016.
First, one of the key suspects, Junya Motohashi, had committed suicide, having hanged himself inside his detention cell several weeks following his arrest in 2021.
Second, the body of Ito was never found as the perpetrators dismembered and minced it in a machine following his killing.
The latter problem caused years to pass between the killing and its discovery, rendering lapses in the statute of limitations on destruction and abandoning a corpse. The only charge left was murder.
By the time the case went to trial, in late 2022, Kazuharu Shimada, a one-time member of the Yamaguchi-gumi criminal syndicate, was the lone target for the prosecution. While he admitted to assaulting the victim, he did not confess to murder.
This view was supported by a suicide note written by Motohashi, which said that it was the third member of Motohashi’s three unnamed henchmen that carried out the finishing blow upon Ito. However, the other two henchmen went along with the prosecution and fingered Shimada as the culprit.
To get to this point, The Tokyo Reporter profiled various persons involved and key aspects of the case, including Shimada, Ito, witness testimony and what may or may not have gone on in the bar that evening.
As previously reported, the court convicted Shimada. For a look at how it ended, the editorial team brings its readership the fifth and final installment in this series.
“There are no circumstances that cast doubt on their credibility”
On December 20, 2022, presiding judge Keiichi Nakagiri convicted Shimada of murder, handing him a 20-year prison term.
From the opening of the trial, Shimada, then aged 55, denied the charge of murder. “I admit to excessive assault, but I did not commit murder,” he told the court. The defense also argued that “the testimony of other accomplices at the scene of the murder is inconsistent, making it difficult and insufficient to prove the act.”
The court felt otherwise.
Although the testimony of the witnesses was different, the verdict recognized the testimony of Motohashi’s first and second henchmen, both of whom fingered Shimada as the culprit, as reports Shukan Bunshun (Dec. 2022).
The reason for the recognition was the statements of the two men matched. “There are no circumstances that cast doubt on their credibility, and considering that the statements match, their credibility is recognized as high,” Nakagiri said.
Regarding the possibility that the two witnesses had wrongly pushed the blame onto Shimada, the court disputed that because they could have conveniently blamed a dead man, Motohashi. “Although there is no need to worry about retaliation from Motohashi, who has already passed away, [the two men] stated that it is not Motohashi but the defendant who is an active member of a yakuza gang who is a cause for concern about retaliation,” Nakagiri said.
The court also pointed out that it was unnatural for Shimada to have dismembered the body if he had not been involved in the murder.
“They chose to kill him”
With Ito’s body never having been found, the proof of the act of murder itself became a point of contention. In the end, the court said, the crime was confirmed based on eyewitness testimony and other evidence, according to Fuji News Network (Dec. 29, 2022).
Presiding judge Nakagiri said, “The testimony of witnesses who were present at the scene of the crime, including the details of the assault and the circumstances leading up to the murder, are consistent and specific, and the defendant was found to have committed the murder.”
He continued, “After the assault, there was a chance to talk things over, and [the perpetrators] could have decided not to kill [Ito], but they chose to kill [him] to silence him. This anti-social decision-making, which disregards the value of human life, deserves severe criticism.”
Afterward, Shimada exercised his right to appeal.
Appeal
At 1:30 p.m. on June 22, 2023, sixteen people lined up in front of the Tokyo High Court. Later inside the courtroom, there were few empty seats, as documented on the site Note.com.
Appearing slightly overweight, Shimada was seated in the seat of the defendant with a shaved head and dark skin. A white mask covered most of his face. He was wearing a black long-sleeved shirt with an English logo and camouflage shorts.
Just before 2:00 p.m., presiding judge Katsunori Ono and other judges entered the courtroom. “All right,” Ono said. “Court will now begin. The defendant, please stand in front of the witness stand.”
Shimada stands in front of the witness stand. “You are the defendant, Kazuharu Shimada, right?” Defendant then said, “Yes.”
After that, Ono read the ruling, which was a denial of the appeal. Shimada then slightly hung his head.
“Just sit and listen,” Ono said.
“There was no reason for an unrelated defendant to store or dismember the body”
In lodging the appeal, Shimada claimed that the first trial contained a “misrepresentation of the facts” as to who carried out the murder. Ono disagreed.
“[The first henchman] testified that the defendant stomped on the victim’s throat with his foot, crushing it. Motohashi held the body and chanted prayers,” Ono said.
He went on, “[The second henchman] testified that the defendant strangled the victim. He stomped on the victim’s neck, crushing it. He wrapped the rope around the victim’s neck and strangled him, turning his face red.”
The judge said that the sequencing of events and the decision to strangle the victim with the rope and hands are largely consistent. “Considering the passage of time, slight differences in memory are natural,” he said.
Ono added that the defendant used equipment from his own company and that of his brother-in-law’s company to mutilate the body.
“There was no reason for an unrelated defendant to store or dismember the body,” Ono said, “and, as the first and third henchmen testified, it can be said that he used [the equipment] because he was the perpetrator.”
Ono did not recognize the testimony of the second henchman, who said someone other than Shimada had done it. He also confirmed speculation that the third henchman was spreading rumors in a hostess club that he in fact had administered the finishing blow of Ito.
“It is clear that [the second henchman] is trying to avoid making statements that are detrimental to the defendant,” Ono said.
In the end, Ono said, “The claim of misinterpretation of the facts is unfounded.”
Shimada also claimed that the 20-year sentence was inappropriate. In his defense, he claimed that he apologized to the victim’s family and provided them with 300,000 yen. He also stated that it was Motohashi who called him to the scene that day and that the victim had upset his daughter.
“The defendant killed the victim who had begged for forgiveness without resisting,” Ono said. “He killed him without resistance [by the victim] to silence him. The defendant committed the murder, which was brutal and merciless, and the sorrow is immeasurable. The bereaved family cannot pray for the repose of their loved one in front of the body, let alone a single piece of bone. The consequences are serious. It is acknowledged that the murder of the victim, an acquaintance, is serious.”
At that, the judge dismissed the court. The proceedings lasted about 17 minutes.
The defendant remained motionless throughout the sentence, looking slightly downward. After the courtroom was adjourned, he frowned and quickly left the courtroom.
The players > The victim > The smartphones > The witnesses > The verdict
