Kishu Don Juan case acquitted by testimony of two dealers…Prosecutor’s attempt to “turn the tables” on the case.

On December 12, Wakayama District Court acquitted his wife, Saki Sudo, who was charged with murder in the death of Kosuke Nozaki, the “Don Juan of Kishu,” at their home in 2006. She was also acquitted of the charge of violating the Methamphetamine Control Law.

It is true that Mr. Nozaki died after ingesting a large amount of methamphetamine. However, the truth remains unknown as to who gave him the methamphetamine and how, or whether he ingested the wrong amount in a lethal dose. The principle of “suspicion goes unpunished” led to the “not guilty” verdict.

Crushed ice sugar that he prepared himself

It is known that Sudo contacted the dealer to purchase methamphetamine. However, the testimonies of two witnesses called by the prosecution, dealer A and dealer B, were at odds with each other.

Trafficker A was the one who gave Sudo the methamphetamine.

A testified, “I gave him real methamphetamine.

A testified that he “gave him real methamphetamine. However, it was Trafficker B who prepared the methamphetamine A gave him, and it was also Trafficker B who posted a message on an Internet bulletin board that said “selling methamphetamine” in a secret language. These two could be considered “fellow dealers.

However, it was B who posted the following statement on the Internet bulletin board

The methamphetamine he was selling with A was all crushed glacial sugar that he had prepared himself.

A testified that he had no access to methamphetamine and that all the methamphetamine he sold with A was crushed sugar.

A said, “Methamphetamine and glacial sugar can be easily distinguished from each other by the characteristics of the way they break if they are in crystalline form.

However, when he actually handed the sugar to Sudo, “I got out of the car and looked at it in the dark on the street with the light of my cell phone,” and based on the conditions of his vision, the court concluded that “it is doubtful that I could identify it as methamphetamine with certainty. The court concluded that “it is doubtful that he was able to identify it as methamphetamine.

In other words, the defendant Sudo “was not found to have obtained real methamphetamine.

The autopsy results do not dispute the fact that methamphetamine was the cause of Mr. Nozaki’s death. The autopsy results do not shake this fact. However, the basic premise that Sudo could not be said to have obtained methamphetamine was overturned, and the “murder weapon” was left hanging in the air. In other words, Sudo was “not guilty of methamphetamine” = “not guilty of murder.

There was no direct evidence to begin with, only circumstantial evidence such as his search history for “perfect crime” and the fact that his health care app recorded the unnatural number of times he went upstairs on the day of the incident. When the not-guilty verdict was announced in the courtroom, not only the press but also the prosecutors were stunned and exclaimed,” said a source from the TV station.

Mr. Nozaki had sexual relations with a woman named Coko even after his marriage to defendant Sudo.

The prosecution will probably appeal.

Coko C received a phone call from Mr. Nozaki.

“I’m on methamphetamine, hehehe.”

and he said to her

“You must be crazy.

and she replied, “You’re crazy.

Mr. Nozaki passed away on May 24, 2006, but C-Co received this phone call at the end of April. With this statement, it was decided that it could not be generally assumed to be a joke.

What will happen in the future? …… According to Kenta Morimi, an attorney at “Morimi Law Office” who is familiar with criminal cases,

According to Kenta Morizane, an attorney at Morizane Law Office who specializes in criminal cases, “Statistics show that the percentage of acquittals in district courts last year was 0.2%, so it is one of the rare cases. The prosecution is likely to appeal the case. Unlike the first trial, the appeals court is not a jury trial, and there are currently cases in which the appeals court has reached a different conclusion in its judgment.

However, it will be difficult to prepare evidence directly supporting that the defendant killed the victim before the appeal hearing. Therefore, the prosecution is likely to blame the first trial court’s decision on how wrong it was, rather than presenting new evidence.

He analyzes, “I think they will mainly argue how the decision of the first trial was wrong and blame the prosecution.

Three years have passed since Sudo was arrested. What steps will the prosecutors take?