Legal Expert Criticizes Masahiro Nakai’s Claim, No Sexual Violence Confirmed Is an Impossible Devil’s Proof

Is the Third-Party Committee lacking neutrality and fairness?

Regarding the dispute involving former entertainer Masahiro Nakai (52) and a former Fuji TV female announcer, Nakai’s legal representative issued a strong rebuttal on May 12 against the investigation report released by the third-party committee established by Fuji TV.

Nakai’s side argued:

“It must be said that the report lacks neutrality and fairness,”

and requested disclosure of the related materials that labeled the incident as sexual violence. They also notified the committee, pointing out issues with the report and demanding clarification. Although Nakai underwent a six-hour hearing, his statements were reportedly scarcely reflected in the report.

The third-party committee concluded that the case fell under the definition of “sexual violence” as defined by the WHO, which includes any sexual act involving coercion. That definition clarifies:

“Coercion is not limited to physical force, and the degree of coercion is not in question; coercion includes psychological pressure and threats.”

Nakai’s side fully denied this, stating:

“The general impression that the Japanese term gives is one of sexual acts involving violence or coercion, which is extremely strong, and no consideration was given to the serious impact that such wording would have on Mr. Nakai’s reputation.”

Furthermore, while the third-party committee stated that the woman involved agreed to waive confidentiality, but Nakai did not, his side argued the opposite:

“We initially proposed waiving confidentiality, but the third-party committee responded that ‘what happened in the private room between the two of them is not the direct subject of investigation.’”

Even if there was a video, it would be difficult to prove

And there’s another crucial sentence worth noting:

“After conducting a detailed interview with Mr. Nakai and thoroughly reviewing related materials, we found no evidence of the kind of violent or coercive sexual acts generally associated with the term ‘sexual violence’ in Japan.”

In short, they are saying that sexual violence could not be confirmed. However, legal experts point out just how difficult such a proof is:

“If this goes to trial, the party alleging that sexual violence occurred would need to prove their claim based on the evidence presented by the third-party committee. In other words, the burden of proof lies with the alleged victim. But Mr. Nakai’s side is asserting that sexual violence was not confirmed. This is what’s commonly known as a ‘devil’s proof’—proving that something didn’t happen, which is extremely difficult.

Therefore, it’s unlikely that even through interviews and examination of related materials, one could definitively confirm that nothing happened. Even if there were secretly recorded video of the interaction between the two, it would still be difficult to conclude whether there was consent or coercion, as the power dynamic might have compelled the woman to comply with Mr. Nakai.”
—Kenta Morizane, lawyer at Morizane Law Office

He further notes:

“While Mr. Nakai’s team has issued a direct rebuttal to the third-party committee’s report, presenting evidence or explanations that can truly convince the public would amount to a devil’s proof—an almost impossible task. While Nakai’s devoted fans, the so-called ‘Nakai-zura,’ are rallying around his rebuttal, it doesn’t change the fact that he remains in a difficult position.”
—Sports newspaper reporter

With both sides presenting completely opposing claims, one can only wonder what kind of conclusion this case will ultimately reach.