To uncover the truth behind my father's concealed medical accident and suspicious death, our family—through our then-representing lawyers—petitioned the court for an evidence-preservation order. On February 8, 2011, an “evidence preservation procedure” was carried out at Toride Kyodo Hospital (Toride City, Ibaraki Prefecture). However, later analysis revealed that the procedure contained major irregularities. Rather than preserving evidence, the hospital, lawyers, and court appear to have coordinated a system of evidence suppression disguised as a legitimate judicial procedure. Using audio recordings, official documents, and contemporaneous notes, this page reconstructs that structure.
※ This page is based on the audio recording of the procedure, the official protocol, emails, and eyewitness accounts.
1. What the “Evidence Preservation” Was Supposed to Be — and What Actually Happened
On February 8, 2011, the Mito District Court Ryugasaki Branch conducted an evidence-preservation procedure inside Toride Kyodo Hospital. The stated purpose was to secure essential materials for clarifying the medical accident: medical charts, nursing records, blood test results, prescriptions, imaging data, and the hospital’s “chronology of events.”
Yet, based on contemporaneous audio recordings and later document analysis, the procedure was structured in a way that maintained the outward appearance of due process while deliberately diminishing the evidentiary value of the materials.
2. Specific Manipulations That Were Discovered
- False entries in the participant list: The record listed the “eldest son,” who was not present, while excluding the “second son,” who actually attended.
- Attempt to exclude the family: Prior arrangement allowed only the eldest son to attend—even though the court knew he was unavailable—effectively attempting to exclude all family members.
- Evidence reclassified as “voluntary submissions”: PCI video, CT, and echocardiogram data provided during the procedure were later declared “voluntary submissions,” stripping them of formal evidentiary status.
- Complete silence from all three lawyers: No objections were raised despite clear irregularities.
- Suppression of requests by the family: Attempts by the second son to request missing ECGs or the ward log were repeatedly shut down by the lawyers.
- Presence of an unlisted man in a brown suit: A man not listed in the attendance record silently stood throughout the procedure.
- Court-directed destruction of manipulated evidence: The ventilator-setting record—under a different patient’s name—was ordered destroyed. The lawyers complied despite objections from the family.
3. AI-Based Structural Analysis: A Judicial Procedure Used for Evidence Suppression
These actions cannot be explained as mere “procedural mistakes.” They imply coordination and shared understanding among the lawyers, judge, and hospital staff. The arrangement strongly suggests that the procedure was engineered to maintain the façade of due process while effectively neutralizing evidence.
4. Records and Evidence Currently Held
- Full audio recording of the February 8, 2011 procedure
- The official protocol (“investigation record”), including false entries and omissions
- Email exchanges with lawyers regarding destruction or exclusion of evidence
- Eyewitness accounts by the patient’s spouse and second son
- Copy of the ventilator-setting record (under a different patient’s name)
These materials can be found in the “Evidence” section of this website.
📄 List of Procedural Irregularities in the Official Protocol (PDF)
This PDF contains redacted images of all five pages of the official protocol prepared during the February 8, 2011 evidence-preservation procedure at Toride Kyodo Hospital. Multiple major irregularities—including omissions, misregistrations, and inconsistencies—have been identified.
Below is a two-page document analyzing eight major irregularities seen in the protocol, from both a legal-procedural perspective and standard judicial practice.
5. Next Steps and Appeal
Evidence preservation is supposed to *protect* evidence. The fact that the procedure was instead used to *weaken*, *exclude*, or *destroy* evidence represents a systemic failure of judicial integrity and a serious form of institutional misconduct.
We will continue to present these materials to the public, calling for truth-finding and restoration of the integrity of Japan’s legal system.