|
|
|
||||||||
Recent Developments in the Seattle Case
Newsgroup: alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren
Subject: Recent Developments in the Seattle Case
From: masafumita@aol.com (MasafumiTa)
Date: 16 Dec 1996 06:42:04 GMT
Message-ID: <19961216064100.BAA00954@ladder01.news.aol.com>
The following is the continuation of the "CLOW TRIAL Testimony Update."
On October 30, 1996, Ronald C. Sprinkle (age 57), former Seattle police
officer, testified in Tokyo District Court (Room 506 presided by Chief
Judge Katsumi Shinohara). This session concluded his cross-examination.
On November 1, 1996, the Nichiren Shoshu Bureau of Religious Affairs
issued a notice titled, "THE CLOW INCIDENT ENDS AND THE SOKA GAKKAI'S
CONSPIRACY COLLAPSES."
When the incident was first revealed, the priesthood insisted that Nikken
did not set foot outside the hotel on the night of the incident. last
year, immediately prior to Mrs. Clow's court testimony, the priesthood
admitted that Nikken actually was out to have a drink on that night. Now
that they have heard Mr. Sprinkle's testimony during the examination by
the defendant's attorney, the priesthood seems to have given up denying
the whole incident. During cross-examination, they asked Mr. Sprinkle
questions that are clearly based on the assumption that Nikken had an
altercation with prostitutes.
During the cross-examination, Nichiren Shoshu's attorney focused on the
minute differences between Mr. Sprinkle's explanation of the incident and
Mrs. Clow's.
For example, there were some discrepancies between how he recalled
Nikken's altercation with prostitutes and how she recounted the incident.
If the incident never had taken place as the priesthood originally
insisted, why did the plaintiff's lawyer question him about Nikken's
altercation with prostitutes and about Mrs. Clow's presence at the scene
of the incident?
In a sense, it is natural that the account of the incident, which took
place more that 30 years ago, by the police officer present at the scene,
and the account told by Mrs. Clow, who was asked to come to the scene by
that police officer, differ in some details, reflecting their different
involvement, in the incident. It would have seemed more unnatural if
their accounts matched in perfect detail. For example, Mr. Sprinkle does
not remember whether he filled out documents regarding the incident at the
police station. But it was routine for him to do. so. So it is not
unusual that he does not remember specifically. Mr. Sprinkle, however,
testified that he recorded the incident in a daily patrol report, and in
his personal log.
In his testimony, Mr. Sprinkle gave a detailed account of the incident.
For example, he stated that on the night of the incident, an Asian male
was standing with his back against the wall of the building (see
Footnote). Prostitutes were standing in front of him, throwing their
arms up, shouting at him. It appeared that the man could not leave the
site on his own. Mr. Sprinkle told the prostitutes to leave quickly. But
they continued to stand around while he and another police officer
attempted to speak with the man. His detailed account clearly proves that
he was at the scene of the incident.
During the cross-examination, the Judge asked Mr. Sprinkle how he
concluded that the cause of the altercation between the Asian male and
prostitutes was about payment for their services. Regarding this,
Nichiren Shoshu's recent notice states that Mr. Sprinkle could only repeat
unintelligible explanations. It further states that he admitted that he
heard nothing from the prostitutes. These reports are unfounded. Mr.
Sprinkle heard what the prostitutes were shouting as the approached the
scene in his police car as the car windows were open. He also heard them
shouting as he arrived at the scene. Furthermore, after he told the
prostitutes to leave the scene, he heard them still shouting. Mr.
Sprinkle stated that he did not remember their exact words, but, judging
from what they were saying, the cause of their altercation with the Asian
male was about payment for their services. In its notice, the priesthood
not only fails to mention any of this concrete testimony, but also lies
about what the witness stated.
The priesthood's notice also did not mention a word about Mr. Sprinkle's
statement that at the time of the incident, prostitution was illegal in
Seattle so that both a prostitutes and her client were considered
criminals. The notice ignores the criminality of Nikken's conduct.
he priesthood has also been stating that the Soka Gakkai hired MR.
Sprinkle to testify in court. Regarding this accusation, during
questioning by the Soka Gakkai's attorney on September 18, 1996, Mr.
Sprinkle testified that he received monetary compensation from Mr.
Langberg's law office for having conducted various investigations. (Mr.
Langberg is an attorney representing Mrs. Clow, not the Soka Gakkai, in a
court case filed against the priesthood in the United States by her.) the
investigation of the difficulties. Since Mr. Sprinkle is a police officer
who was at the scene to examine the incident, Mr. Langberg considered him
to be most knowledgeable about the incident and thus most appropriate for
the investigation of the incident.
Through his investigation, Mr. Sprinkle obtained important finding
relating to the case. For example, he acquired aerial photographs that
show the road conditions of downtown Seattle. He also found out that his
partner on patrol that night was Mr. Barnyard Victor Malay. It is natural
to compensate Mr. Sprinkle, who is comfortably retired now, for his time
and efforts spent on investigative work. Mr. Langberg asked Mr. Sprinkle
to investigate the incident regarding the court case filed in the United
States in which he represents Mrs. Clow. It is untrue that the Soka
Gakkai hired Mr. Sprinkle.
The priesthood once attempted to deny the incident on the basis that Mrs.
Clow would not have been able to arrive at the scene because of road
construction at the time. Their assertion, however, was proven false
through aerial photographs of the area. Their recent notice does not
mention anything relating to this point as well.
In September of last year, the priesthood proudly announced that they had
obtained conclusive evidence to deny the incident. To this day, however,
such evidence has not been submitted to the court.
(Source: Seikyo Shimbun, November 5 and 6 issues )
__________________________________________________
(Footnote) He was not standing with a building wall on his back. As Mr. John Ayres wrote on 12
Dec 96, Nikken was not that strong.
Sorry for the mistranslation in my previous post.
He is not "Superman" -- well, may be he is. That's why High Priest
Nikken could hide his identity for 30 years!
Masafumi Taisei
Kyushu, Japan
GO BACK TO THE FRONT PAGE