« AnteriorContinuar »
Why do you think Mr. Mochizuki was chosen as the interpreter?
DUYW10 DU044u La Cunud LAURI Wilcno state
Department. o so, is it through connections that these appointments are
made? A I think so. O Do you think the Prosecutor selected him? A I wonder, I don't know. o How much explanation about the background and the problems
rolated to this case did you receiva? À I didn't get any explanation at all?
None at all. But I myself raised that question sometimes
Maybe I did.
accurate job. If I did say so, I think it was in that sense.
because he is also a Japanese? A No, I don't think so; I don't mind criticizing others.
You wanted to say that small mistakes cannot be helped
So, there was no reason.
Is that so?
I suppose we'll have to read your Grand Jury testimony.
Yes, 1. that were available, it would be clear.
have you ever indicated the difference between the oficial
translation of the English Oath. Q How about 'to take an oath' Ichikaul?
The word meaning 'to take an oath' was not there. o Flumenbaum did know that the regular Oath administered in
American courts was not used, didn't he? Flumenba um should have known that. But take for instance this translation - "So help you God" translated as "May God help you" 18 a mistake. I don't think that's what it means. "Respectfully swoar" for "solemnly swear" is awkward also. How would you translate it, Mr. Sa sagawa? 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 nosp you" doesn't make any sense in Japanese, and I think it is certain that that is not what it means. This is to confirm a point, you mentioned that parts of the
translation could be "problematic 1: taken up by themselves." A Yes, like that part about the airplane and so on.
Yes, what did you mean by that? A Well, in any case this Interpreter translates with roundabou:
expressions adding on his own unnecessary interpretations, making errors in translation, and because of this, Mo. Flumonbaum', questions go around in circles many times. Listening to the tapes, I felt frustrated several times. I did toll Flumenbaum about this. To what extent Mr. Kamiyama know 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 himselt.
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 Interpretez, I can definitely say that it was not his bast.
Had the Interpretor been a little more competent... A Well, this man is capable, but I wish he would have done a
better job. o if he had done a good job, such a problem would not have
À well, :.: would have been up to the Grand Jury, but if he
! betta: jcb...that is a great regret. About that,
at ...::::25e:'3 job was not the best possible : to cha s:::23 and custify to, certainly.
:.:2 Proj20::07, while nearing your various opinions, ... jagawa, sti:! went ahead with the prosecution... A Yes, I wrote many things in the report but I don't know
whether he ignored, studied, showed to others or did what
Yes, what we have recorded on tape today.
time is true as far as I remember.
I swear that the foregoing questions and answers which ! reviewed here are true and correct to the best o: my knowledge as long as they conform to the tapes, without compulsion from anyone.
September 12, 1984
allelt (Eisyke Sasagawa1
ON THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION OF MR. KAMI YAMA'S
Japan and the United States are neighboring nations separated by the great Pacific Ocean from each other. In spite of this distance, these two nations have greatly strengthened their mutual ties over the years.
They maintain close political, economic, and social relations. However, in spite of the fact
that these two nations are free, democratic, highly
industrialized, and wealthy societies, i.e., in
spite of these obvious similarities, they have had
distinctively different historical pasts, giving
rise to two sets of behavioral patterns, as well as
two sets of emotions toward what constitutes justice.
Separating these two nations, therefore, is not only
the Pacific Ocean, but also the socio-cultural
peculiarities such as linguistic difference, which
separates them apart sometimes even more than the ocean.
Particularly in the historical respect, needless
to say, the system and procedures governing
Thus, we have today two significantly
different trial systems in Japan and the United States.
In fact, the comparison of the two will show a
contrasting difference as to the underlying principles and the prevailing structures.
This case involving Mr. Kamiyama is one salient example of such difference.