 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Unjust lawsuit filed by a present city councilor is completely overturned
A lawsuit concerning the Higashi Murayama incident, a false rumor fabricated by by a current Higashi Murayama city council member, the Shukan Shincho magazine, the Shukan Gendai magazine, and Masao Otsukotsu, a journalist with a history of antagonism toward and false reporting about the Soka Gakkai, closed with the total victory for Soka Gakkai.
In the unjust libel suit filed by city councilor Hozumi Yano, Naoko Asaki (a daughter of the late Akiyo Asaki), and Daito Asaki (the husband of Akiyo) against Soka Gakkai, claiming that they were defamed by an article in the Soka Shimpo, the Tokyo District Court upheld all of the Soka Gakkai’s claims and dismissed all of Yano and Asakis’ claims.
In the trial, Yano and the Asakis had criticized the Tokyo Prosecutor's Office who announced that the death of the late Councilwoman Asaki could not be considered a murder case because there was no evidence indicating a crime, and therefore the probability of suicide is exceedingly high.
In the Soka Shimpo article published on May 7, 1997, it was reported that the police had concluded that Akiyo Asaki's death was a suicide and the prosecutor's office closed their investigation of the death, affirming that the probability of suicide was exceedingly high. In addition, it reported that, two months before her death, Akiyo had been charged by police with shoplifting for stealing a T-shirt from a local apparel store and with help by Yano, tried to come up with an explanation of the events. Furthermore, the article pointed out that Akiyo had been requested to appear at the Public Prosecutor's Office in relation to the shoplifting charge four days before her death. From these perspectives, the article asserted that Akiyo’s death was nothing but a suicide and that the Soka Gakkai had nothing whatsoever to do with her death.
Upholding Soka Gakkai’s claims, the Tokyo District Court ruled that the report published in the Soka Shimpo was based on the factual accounts and therefore did not constitute defamation.
(Summary of Seikyo Shimbun article, March 11, 2003)
|
|
|
 |
|
