The building of the Internet cafe where the man held the female waitress hostage on June 18 last year in Saitama City (center) and the assembled press (photo: Kyodo News).The defendant states that his feelings were aroused as he spent time in a private room with the female clerk. Another prosecutor asked him more questions, sometimes provocatively, but he insisted that the female waitress had agreed to his request for sexual intercourse. The prosecutor asked, “What did you read into the victim’s mind when she said she was worried about you and didn’t run away when you tried to kill yourself?” Defendant “Well, I’m not someone who can read people’s minds, but, well, it’s not so much reading, I thought that she had no intention of running away, equal, we can be together, that’s how I felt.” Prosecutor, “Isn’t that your inner thought that you are open to intercourse?” Defendant, “I don’t think so.”   The “substance” of the complaint against society At the time of the incident, there were two female clerks and one male clerk in the store. The defendant then approached the female clerk who was the victim in this case. During the interrogation at the time of his arrest, he made a statement as if he was targeting the female clerk, saying that he had met the woman of his dreams whom he had been searching for a long time, but he continued to deny that he had said that at all on that day. He then went on to say, “I didn’t do it for sexual purposes, but because I wanted to complain to society about my past experience of being in prison.” “I was arrested for my first offense and released from prison. I tried to work diligently, but when the police found out that I had a criminal record, they forced me to stand in front of them and held me for questioning. I also want to express my dissatisfaction that I will not be able to return to society once I go to jail. You want to make your point? While you were holed up? I thought it would be refreshing if I could say that.” It seems that he wanted his claim to be conveyed through the media while he was holed up. He continues to talk about the pain he was going through at the time during this trial. “I was looking for a job after I got out of prison, like at Hello Work. But if I didn’t have an ID or had just been released from prison, it was difficult to get a job. When I tried to get my number card made, I was turned down because they said I needed an ID card to make an ID. The company in general told me that they could not hire me without an ID or a smartphone. It is not easy to have a good social life when you have been in prison several times. They didn’t even give me an ID card. I wanted to say that if you are in one for a long time, you can’t live a normal life.”   By the way, his testimony regarding intercourse differed greatly from that of the female clerk. The defendant stated that she asked if she could do it, but the female clerk stated, “He pulled me into a private room, strangled me, knocked me down, and immediately had sexual intercourse with me.” She testified that she was then threatened with a cutter and forced to have oral intercourse. When asked by the presiding judge about this discrepancy, the defendant replied, “She is mistaken! I deny it unequivocally,” and stated that his side of the story was correct. While complaining about the current difficult situation of reemployment for those released from prison, the defendant stated that he had consensual sexual intercourse with the female clerk. The verdict will be handed down on the 20th.