A Possible Verdict on the Case of Kanazawa no Takehiko as regards to the defense presentation of the story "In A Grove"
...as that Takehiko’s confession is unreliable. The jury was convinced by this statement since it is reasonable enough that a samurai would protect his honor. Their reasoning is regarded valid since if he had killed himself alone, he need not elevate the position of the robber. Though, the jury does not retract the fact that he could have motives other than protecting his honor, such as to elevate the position of the being that had done dishonor to his wife. Everyone may not uncover his absolute motive of confessing that he really killed himself but the juries are persuaded that his testimony is indeed unreliable. The defense panel also contended that if he had committed suicide, the weapon would be found close to the body. The jury considered this point valid but not necessarily true. They may have a point that the one who committed suicide could not possibly move his weapon to another location but the weapon could be moved to another place by someone else. Note that several people had been to the crime scene before and after the crime was committed. Thus, it is also possible that someone else moved the weapon to another location. But the occurrence of such instance has very unlikely possibilities, thus, the point was justified and was accepted. Lastly, according to the defense panel, if a samurai was dishonored, there were only two ways for him to die: (1) to be killed by an opponent in a battle or (2) to perform seppuku or hara-kiri. This is their weakest argument and is considered an either/or dilemma fallacy since there are still other ways for a samurai to die other than the proposed two. Moreover, Takehiko was not dishonored. It is his wife who was dishonored, if Tajomaru really had raped her. But if the defense panel considered watching his wife helpless and he could do nothing to help a dishonor to him, the jury would have agreed with the defense panel. If so, he could not perform hara-kiri since he did not commit any misdeed and the wound is in his breast and not in his abdomen. Hence, the cause of his death was certainly not hara-kiri. But it is also possible that constrained by the fact that he couldn’t have performed hara-kiri because his case was beyond the bounds of the conditions to perform hara-kiri, he just stabbed himself at the breast for this disgrace. Though, despite of some flaws and a few inconsistencies in their claims, their arguments are strong and significant. Thus, leads the jury to a deduction that Takehiko did not kill himself. Kanazawa no Takehiko is now dismissed of the allegation that he committed suicide. VERDICT ON MASAGO: MASAGO DID NOT KILL TAKEHIKO ~John Basilio~ Masago’s defense was indeed able to prove that Masago’s testimony was unreliable due to their first point about Masago being in a psychological turmoil after she was raped by the robber. They were able to support their theory by showing evident proofs from the text. First, Masago’s seizures during the incident after she was raped and second, Masago calling her husband “Takejiro.” Thus, by showing these evidences, they were able to make a factual statement about Masago’s state of consciousness. This was such a strong argument but the defense became inconsistent with some of their arguments like the one about Masago’s confession that she stabbed the murdered man wearing a lilac-colored kimono. They tried to deduce that since Masago said that she stabbed a man wearing a lilac-colored kimono and Takehiko was wearing a blue silk kimono, as testified by the woodcutter, then it follows that it was a different man. They were inconsistent because they already proved that Masago’s testimony was unreliable and yet they were making hypothesis out of Masago’s unreliable statement. Nevertheless, after weighing the arguments and evidences, the jury thinks that Masago is not guilty of killing Kanazawa no Takehiko. VERDICT ON THE BUDDHIST PRIEST: HE DID NOT KILL TAKEHIKO ~Anna Chriselda Ruiz~ The jury has arrived to the verdict that the Buddhist priest did not kill Takehiko. Nevertheless, this does not justify that the priest is absolutely innocent and there is still a possibility that he killed Takehiko because of some flaws in their arguments and defenses. Their arguments were quite convincing but were not strong enough to get rid of the suspicion that the priest was the killer. The defense presented three arguments in their paper. First, they argued about the setting. Yes, it was certainly true that the body was found in an out-of-the-way grove and this setting is remarkably different from where the Buddhist priest saw Takehiko and his wife. The group said that the setting was already a contradiction. But try to analyze the situation. Do you think a person would kill someone in a place where they have met and where other people would see him (since they met on the road)? Definitely not, and thus it is still possible that the priest killed Takehiko. The group’s argument about the setting is very weak and wasn’t examined well. Their second argument was about the testimonies of the other characters. This seems to be the one of strong arguments of the group because the jury was convinced that the testimonies of the other characters have nothing to do with the Buddhist priest and they did not even mention the priest. This argument could be a cause why the priest was discharged of the crime. On the contrary, the testimonies of the other characters are not the only factors and evidences being scrutinized and studied in this case. Their third argument was about the facts presented in the testimony of the priest. The group alleged that the priest was innocent because upon seeing Takehiko and his wife, the priest did not pay attention on the details about the couple. He only noticed the clothes of the girl, her height and the armor brought by Takehiko. However, if you examine carefully the details given by the priest, these details can aren’t simple and general details. First, the height of the girl, the woman was said to be sitting on the horse so it was impossible for the priest walking by to notice and approximate the height of the woman riding on the horse. Moreover, it was also very striking because he was able to estimate the number of arrows carried by Takehiko and a person who is juts passing by the road would certainly not look and notice such details. The group said that there is a high possibility that the priest is intimidated because the samurai was well-equipped. That could be possible but nevertheless there is also a very high possibility that the priest could not be intimidated solely because the samurai was armed. In their defense they claimed that the priest has no motives of killing Takehiko. But they have said in their argument that the priest notices such details about the woman because it is the way a man looks or checks out for qualities that might attract him. With that, they have given a motive that the priest could have. Lastly, in the testimony of the priest, he emphasized that he was a Buddhist priest and that is why he did not pay much attention to details. The group’s argument is that the priest is bounded by a code of ethics. However, this does not justify that he is clean. The group argued that they were not saying that the priest is morally perfect. In that case, the priest could have killed Takehiko since he is not morally perfect. In spite of some inaccuracies and defects in their argument and defense, the things that they have presented were considerable and some were convincing which lead to the decision of the jury that the Buddhist priest did not kill Takehiko. VERDICT ON THE WOODCUTTER: THE WOODCUTTER IS GUILTY OF KILLING KANAZAWA NO TAKEHIKO ~Sabello Bibit~ The woodcutter had the least effective arguments so the jury decided that he is most likely be guilty. The facts they presented are not appealing. The first fact was “The reason why the woodcutter was at the crime scene is because that is where he worked.” However, due to the vast and widespread the ...