Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

or at some other places. I wrote it precisely in the report and gave it to him.

Then, how about the difference between 'paid for' and

'bought'. So you remember testifying at the Grand Jury about the difference 'paid for' and 'bought'?

A Well, I didn't go in to it so deeply, but I do remember writing it in the report and handing it in. If you once answer "yes" in a testimony when you are asked, "Have you done these things?", it will include these matters also.

Q So, you don't remember it exactly now. Mr. Sasagawa, do you think that Mr. Mochizuki did a 'credible' job as an simultaneous interpreter at the Grand Jury's testimony on December 15, 1981.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

But this is not simultaneous interpretation. consecutiva.

It is only

Well then. Do you remember testifying on the matter of this sort?

I don't think I mentioned anything about the qualification of an interpreter.

[ocr errors][merged small]

A

I don't quite remember, but I don't think I did.

Except,

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

A

No.

1

Flumenbaum. I've never met Mr. Mochizuki, so. But

I told him several times my personal impression and comments like, this part and this part are mistranslated, but this

part and this part are reliable on the whole, and so on.

Q And do you remember testifying at the Grand Jury that he did a credible job?

A I don't remember...testifying, but I did tell Flumenbaum many times about, my impression.

A

Q

A

Q

A

What kind of impression.

I mentioned things like this part and this part are sloppy,
this part is carelessly or loosely translated, or he is
adding unnecessary words.

And do you think of it as a simultaneous translation?
This? This is all consecutive interpretation.

Then, I'll ask you again, but after examining the work
of Mr. Mochizuki, do you (Mr. Sasagawa) think that his
job was very credible?

He is a very competent interpreter, but regarding this job, he seems to be too relaxed.

What do you mean?

A The only problem is that he sometimes translated in a loose
and tedious manner, adds unnecessary things and his own
interpretations.

QI see. And also, do you remember testifying at the Grand
Jury hearing on February and March of 1982 saying, "He
did a very credible job?"

[blocks in formation]

Q Do you remember appearing before the Grand Jury on February or March of 1982?

Q You do remember testifying perhaps two times. Then during those two times, do you remember testifying to the effect that he did a very credible job as a simultaneous translation?

A

I'm not sure about that. It will become clear if you check. Q Your dissatisfaction towards the interpreter was that,

[ocr errors]

as you expressed his translation was "loose and tedious,
and too relaxed." Is it likely that you testified saying
"He did a very credible job", or not. Is that possibility
high or low? What do you think?

A Well, there is a possibility that I said "Yes, that's right"
about the details I explained in other contexts, taking them
as a whole, speaking generally; but when I look at the
material here before me, I can remember that this was the way
it was because of the record. But right now I don't have that
record, or you say it's not here, so I can't say anything.
I would rather say, I don't remember, than say something
funny. My memory does gradually come back, while looking
at a record like this.

Q well, at any rate, you checked all the translation by working on it for several months. But I think this English transcript is very dangerous because it gives other people mistaken impressions. You can read it through so smoothly.

A Yes, well, I have already told Mr. Flumenbaum about the various problems in translation. But I don't know to what extent Mr. Flumenbaum explained them to the Grand Jury. QI see. Well, then, that means if Mr. Flumenbaum had called the attention and memory of the Grand Jury to this matter more, then the interpretation of this perjury might have been more different...

[blocks in formation]

Q Why do you think Mr. Flumenbaum especially did not convey this?

A Convey what?

Q

A

Your (Mr. Sasagawa's) comments, to this Grand Jury?

To the Grand Jury? He might have conveyed them or might not have.

Q If not, why do you think he didn't?

A

If he didn't convey them,...I don't know. It's hard to say. I advised a lot of things to him concerning this case. For example, Mr. Kamiyama once left his seat to go to the toilet. Anu Later on, ne est nis seat again saying he wanted to have a cigarette. I think at that time I told him (Flumenbaum) that Mr. Kamiyama might not be a smoker. Anyway, I wrote down everything I noticed as my comment. I don't know what Mr. Flumenbaum did with this report after reading it. Whether he threw it away, or showed it to someone, I don't know.

Q But, wasn't the report typed?

A Yes. He said he would ask his secretary to type it.

Q And, if he did have it typed...

A Yes, the record should be somewhere.

But, what kind of a person is Mr. Flumenbaum? Did he have a strong belief or something of that nature that somehow he must prosecute this case?

Ne he seemed as though he was confident that Mr. Kamiyama Kad committed perjury. When I was talking with other.. what shall I say, colleagues of Mr. Flumenbaum, they were saying this, (that) he firmly believed that.

QHmm, but comparing_the transcript and the tapes, there are

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

some places I cannot explain. One is, it's written in the transcript...That..Mr. Kamiyama has already taken an oath at the beginning, and his examination will start, it says. But here on the same transcript, it says, "Let the record reflect that...I am going to press the button to start the tape recorder..." and then, "Please call the witness in." Then, the administration of the Oath is not recorded on the tape at all.

Uh, what do you mean.....?

In other words, (on the transcript, the Prosecutor) says that he will start the tape recording. So, the tape must be moving. And then, it says, please call the witness in. But from that point on, nothing is recorded. The next voice recorded on the tape says, "Mr. Kamiyama, please speak more loudly."

Yes, there was a part like that.

So, I don't know whether the Oath was administered there or not, but nothing is recorded on the tape.

I see.

But according to the transcript, it is stated that Mr. Kamiyama wan already worn in. Tt in written that the witness was "duly sworn in."

I see.

So, what is taking place on the tape does not correspond to what is recorded on the transcript.

A

Q

A

Yes. Well, one doesn't know because one wasn't there at that place.

Q Didn't you notice that while you were checking this before?

A Well, I don't think there were any missing parts. I don't remember finding any part that seemed to be omitted on the transcript, but recorded on the tape.

[ocr errors][merged small]

A

If I had noticed it, I think I would have told him. be written in the report, but I'm not sure.

It may

[blocks in formation]

Q Were you ever told by the Prosecutor to pay close attention

[blocks in formation]

Q Only the contents. So...let's see, is there anything else I should ask you...? So you have read this statement and the letter through and have signed it, right? approved of the contents before signing it?

You

A Yes. But I'm not quite sure whether it was once or twice that I appeared before the court.

Q And, as to what you said there, there are no mistakes?

[blocks in formation]

Q

A

Did you, Mr. Sasagawa, receive any comments from Mr.
Flumenbaum concerning Mr. Mochizuki's translation?
Yes, he did ask whether the Interpreter was alright. He
asked me something like, "How about this Interpreter?
He's alright, isn't he?"

Q Was the Prosecutor himself a bit uncertain?

A

Not exactly uncertain, but I think he just wanted to make sure. He was asking in a way like, "Wasn't this Interpreter alright?"

A

Why do you think Mr. Mochizuki was chosen as the Interpreter?
Isn't it because he had permanent residency in the States?
A Green Card, I mean. He has an American Green Card and I
801110 ALTEC UL a comection with the State

Department.

Q So, is it through connections that these appointments are made?

[blocks in formation]

Q How much explanation about the background and the problems related to this case did you receive?

A

I didn't get any explanation at all?

Q None at all.

But I myself raised that question sometimes

to him. What exactly is happening here? Or something to that extent.

Q From 1981 to 1982 when you gave your testimony up till today, was there any occasion in which your evaluation of the

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Α It's been the same. Although he was capable as an Interpreter, he added superfluous words or omitted words, although omissions can't be helped, it's not that he wanted to make them. But to add unnecessary things by his own interpretation, this, he should not have done. My concern is whether he interpreted, taking notes or not. If he took notes I could say that he did his best. However, if he did not take any notes at all, that was a shortcoming on his part.

QI want to ask you again. Didn't you express at one time that Mr. Mochizuki appeared to have done a very credible job as a simultaneous translator?

[blocks in formation]

A

Well, partially, perhaps because he was doing a relatively accurate job. If I did say so, I think it was in that sense. However, this interpretation was not simultaneous. So, there is no apparent reason that I would have to make such an evaluation. It's hard to say.

Q Well, perhaps you didn't like to speak ill of the Interpreter because he is also a Japanese?

A

[ocr errors]

A

No, I don't think so; I don't mind criticizing others. You wanted to say that small mistakes cannot be helped because simultaneous translation is a very rapid job? Yes, if it were simultaneous interpreting, it can't be helped that there were some awkward parts.

Q Well, the meaning has to be conveyed at the same time the speaker finishes, so it can't be helped.

A

But, this isn't simultaneous translation or anything. There's no reason to use that expression.

Q So, there was no reason.

A None, and I don't think it was used.

QIs that so?

A I'm not certain.

QI suppose we'll have to read your Grand Jury testimony.
Yes, if that were available, it would be clear.

A

Q Is there anything else? Oh, yes, concerning the Oath,

have you ever indicated the difference between the official Oath and the abbreviated one (used for Mr. Kamiyama) to Mr. Flumenbaum?

A I was writing out all of the Japanese and translating it directly, so Flumenbaum should have known, if he had studied it.

And the word, 'swear' was not in (the translation)? A The word 'swear' never appeared in Mr. Mochizuki's translation of the English Oath.

Q How about 'to take an oath' (chikau)?

A

A

[ocr errors]

The word meaning 'to take an oath' was not there.
Flumenbaum did know that the regular Oath administered in
American courts was not used, didn't he?

Flumenbaum should have known that. But take for instance this translation - "So help you God" translated as "May God help you" is a mistake. I don't think that's what it means. "Respectfully swear" for "solemnly swear" is awkward also. How would you translate it, Mr. Sasagawa?

A Well, if I were to do it reading this, there would be many possibilities, but if I were put on the spot, it would probably be something like "Do you swear to state the truth?" Of course if I did it several times, the set phrase would come immediately. But may God help you" doesn't make any sense in Japanese, and I think it is certain that that is not what it means.

A

This is to confirm a point, you mentioned that parts of the translation could be "problematic if taken up by themselves." Yes, like that part about the airplane and so on.

Q Yes, what did you mean by that?

A

Well, in any case this Interpreter translates with roundabout expressions adding on his own unnecessary interpretations, making errors in translation, and because of this, Mr. Flumenbaum's questions go around in circles many times. Listening to the tapes, I felt frustrated several times. I did tell Flumenbaum about this. To what extent Mr. Kamiyama knew English, whether he understood but pretended not to understand, or really did not understand and was confused by the Interpreter, this we can only find out from he himself.

This Interpreter has the ability, but I think he didn't do as much as he could, well, he was a little too relaxed. I could testify to this fact. I don't know about Mr. Kamiyama, but as regards the performance of this Interpreter, I can definitely say that it was not his best.

Had the Interpreter been a little more competent...

A Well, this man is capable, but I wish he would have done a better job.

Q If he had done a good job, such a problem would not have occurred.

« AnteriorContinuar »