Japanese Trials

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:17

Singapore Cases: No. 235/814

First Tarmugli Island Case




Accused: (1) Maj-Gen. SATO Tamenori

(2) Colonel KIYOMOTO Takuichi

(3) Lt-Col. TAZAWA Keizo

(4) Lieut. ISHIDA Tadashi

(5) Lieut. BABA Ikuo

All of the Imperial Japanese Army.



Place and Date of Trial: Singapore, 5-7 March 46



Finding and Sentence: Each accused – Guilty.

Accused No. 1 – Guilty – Death by hanging

Accused No. 2 – Guilty – 15 years imprisonment

Accused No. 3 – Guilty – Death by hanging

Accused No. 4- Guilty – 1 year imprisonment

Accused No. 5 – Guilty- 1 year imprisonment

There was no printed finding and sentence passed by the judges in court.


Charges: Committing a war crime in that they in the ANDAMAN ISLANDS between 23

and 25 July 1945 in violation of the laws and usages of war were concerned in

the ill-treatment and killing of Burmese civilians numbering eighteen men, nine

women and thirty-four children.

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:20

Synopsis of Case No. 235/886
From the Trials of Japanese War Crimes in Singapore
Conducted by the British Military


Anami et al.
Accused
(1) Lt Col ANAMI Sanso
(2) Capt SHIMADA Kuranosuke (Doctor)
(3) Capt SHIOGAWA Kazue
(4) Capt UEDA Tadae
(5) Sgt Maj MORI Masao
(6) Sgt Maj KAWAI Kichijiro
(7) Sgt Maj YAMAMOTO Yoshikazu
(8) Korean Guard KAWAYAMA Yoshikichi
(9) Korean Guard TOYODA Ginjiro
(10) Korean Guard KANEKADO Kankon
(11) Korean Guard KIMURA Shigeru
(12) Korean Guard FUJIMOTO Yoshio
(13) Capt KURASHIMA Hideichi
of the Imperial Japanese Army
Place and Date of Trial
Singapore, 3-4, 10-13, 15-20, 22-23, 26 Jul 1946
Finding and Sentence
Accused Charge - Not guilty Charge - Guilty Sentence
1 - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th charges Death by hanging
2 - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th charges Death by hanging
3 1st charge 3rd & 5th charges 15 years imprisonment
4 1st charge 3rd & 5th charges Death by hanging
5 - 1st, 2nd, 6th & 7th charges Death by hanging
6 1st charge 3rd & 6th charges Death by hanging
7 1st charge 3rd & 4th charges 10 years imprisonment
8 1st charge 2nd, 6th & 7th charges Life imprisonment
9 1st charge 2nd charge 10 years imprisonment
10 1st charge 2nd charge 10 years imprisonment
11 1st charge 3rd charge 7 years imprisonment
12 1st charge 3rd charge Life imprisonment
13 - 1st, 2nd & 6th charges Death by hanging

Note on Finding/Sentence
There was no printed finding and sentence passed by the judges in court.
Charges
First charge: (Against all the accused)
Committing a war crime in that they at Sourabaya, Java, and at Sea, in the month of April 1943, when concerned in the transport of a draft of British and Dutch Prisoners of War to Horoekoe, Liang (Ambon) and Amahai (Ceram) Islands, were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of the said Prisoners of War.

Second charge: (Against Accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 13 only)
Committing a war crime in that they at Horoekoe Island, between 1st May 1943 and 31st October 1944, the Accused 1, as Commandant Prisoners of War Camp Group, the Accused 2, as Medical Officer Prisoners of War Camp Group, and the other accused named, as members of the Horoekoe Prisoners of War Camp Staff, being responsible for the well being of British and Dutch Prisoners of War interned in the said Camp were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of the said Prisoners of War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.

Third charge: (Against Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12 only)
Committing a war crime in that they at Ambon Island, between 1st May 1943 and 31st October 1944, the Accused 1 as Commandant Prisoners of War Camp Group, the Accused 2, as Medical Officer Prisoners of War Camp Group and the other accused named, as members of the Ambon prisoners of war camp-staff, being responsible for the well-being of British and Dutch Prisoners of War interned in the said Camp, were, in violation of the laws and usages of war together concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoners of War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.

Fourth charge: (Against Accused Nos. 4 and 7 only)
Committing a war crime in that they at Ambon Island, on or about the month of July 1943, in violation of the laws and usages of war, were, together concerned in the killing of Trooper CHAMPION of the Royal Armoured Corps, a Prisoner of war in their custody.

Fifth charge: (Against Accused Nos. 1 and 3 only)
Committing a war crime in that they at Ceram Island between 1st May 1943 and 31st October 1944, the Accused 1, as Commandant Prisoners of War Camp Group, the Accused 2, as Medical Officer Prisoners of War Camp Group, and the accused 3 as officer in charge Amahai Camp, being responsible for the well being of British and Dutch Prisoners of War interned in the said Camp, were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoners of War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.

Sixth Charge: (Against Accused 1, 2, 6, 8, and 13 only)
Committing a war crime in that they on a voyage from Ambon Island to Java in or about the month of September 1944, when concerned in the transport of a draft of British and Dutch Prisoners of War by s.s. "Maros" (renamed "Haruyoshi Maru") were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of the said Prisoners of War resulting in the deaths of some and in physical sufferings to others.

Seventh Charge: (Against Accused 5 and 8 only)
Committing a war crime in that they at Landsop (L.C.G.) Camp, Bandoeng, Java, in the months of May and June 1945, were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of Allied Prisoners of War in the said Camp, which ill-treatment included beating of the said Prisoners of War.

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:21

Synopsis of Case No. 235/825
From the Trials of Japanese War Crimes in Singapore
Conducted by the British Military


Fukuei
Accused
Lieut-General FUKUEI Shimpei
of the Imperial Japanese Army

Place and Date of Trial
Singapore, 22, 25-28 Feb 46
Finding and Sentence
Charges 1 & 2 - Guilty - Death by shooting
For Charge 1: Guilty except that for "29 Aug 45 and 6 Sep 45"should be read "29 Aug 42 and 6 Sep 42" and for "more than 17000" should be read "about 15000".

Note on Finding/Sentence
A printed finding and sentence passed by the judges in court exists.
Charges
(1) Committing a war crime in that he at Changi between 29 Aug 45 and 6 Sep 45 in violation of the laws and usages of war was concerned in an attempt to compel prisoners of war in his custody and under his command to sign documents which bound them under oath to refrain from attempts to escape and in order to such compulsion was concerned in the ill-treatment of the said prisoners of war and in the removal of more than 17,000 of them to Selerang Barracks where no provision was made for their maintenance and comfort.
(2) Committing a war crime in that he at Changi on or about 2 Sep 42 in violation of the laws and usages of war as concerned in the killing of Corporal Breavington, Private Gale, Private Walters and Private Fletcher at that time prisoners of war in his custody and under his command.

Facts Relating to The Charge
1. In August and September 1946 the accused was in command of the POW administration in Singapore.
2. On 13th August 1942 Colonel E.V. HOLMES at that time POW commander of the British and Australian troops in Changi was summoned to the accused's Headquarters. He was seen by Lieut. Col. Makumura AIKO and Lieut. OKASAKi, members of the accused's staff. He was shown a form containing the following words: "I, the undersigned hereby solemnly swear on my honour that I will not under any circumstances attempt to escape." and ordered to induce all PsOW to sign this form. He replied that such an order was unlawful. This protest was ignored and the Japanese officers repeated their original order.
3. The forms were distributed to the PsOW. Col. HOLMES issued orders that whileevery man must have an opportunity to sign if he wished they should be discouraged from doing so. 2 days later Col. HOLMES saw Lieut. OKASAKI who told him that on the following day 4 men were to be shot for attempting to escape and that Col. HOLMES and other British officers were to witness the execution. Lieut. OKASAKI added that all persons who refused to sign the form were to march to Selerang Barracks and occupy the square there.
4. Col. HOLMES asked for the time and place of the execution and whether an
appeal for clemency would be allowed. This was refused, and an interview with the accused was also refused. OKASAKI stated that orders of the General came through him.
5. On the following day Col. HOLMES wrote out an appeal for clemency for the 4 men (named in the above charge) who were to be shot. It was taken to the Japanese Headquarters, where the Japanese officer on duty tore it to pieces upon reading it. Soon after mid-day the 4 men were brought to execution. A firing squad was commanded by Captain RAWA of the INA and the party was under the command of Lieut. OKASAKI. The 4 men were shot to death in the presence of Col. HOLMES and other senior British officials. The firing party was inefficient. After the execution Lieut. OKASAKI addressed the British officers present: "You have seen what has happened. It is your duty to order your men to sign the required form of no-escape."
6. In the meantime the prisoners of war from all the Changi camps were beingmarched to Selerang. Selerang Barracks is some 250 yards square and they concentrated 17,000 men into it. It was strictly guarded by Sikhs with machine-guns, and no one was allowed to step out of the square. Still the prisoners of war refused to sign the no-escape order. Lieut. OKASAKI threatened that if they maintained their refusal the hospital patients would join them in the square.
7. On the advice of his medical officers, who feared an outbreak of disease, Col. HOLMES on the 6th September ordered the prisoners of war to sign the no-escape forms, informing them that, since they signed under duress, the promise did not bind them.

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:23

Singapore Cases: No. 235/813
Gozawa Case



Accused:
(1) Capt Gozawa Sadaichi
(2) Lieut Kaniyaki Nakamura
(3) Capt Okusawa Ken
(4) Lieut Kajino Ryuichi
(5) Sjt Major Tanno Shozo
(6) Sjt Major Ono Tadasu
(7) Sjt Yabi Jinichiro
(8) Cpl Osaki Makoto
(9) Cpl Ashiya Tamotsu
(10) L/Cpl Chiba Masumi
of the Imperial Japanese Army

Place and Date of Trial: Singapore, 21-26, 28-31 Jan 46, and 1 Feb 46

Finding and Sentence:
Accused No. 1 - each charge - Guilty - 12 years imprisonment
Accused No. 2 - each charge - Guilty - death by hanging
Accused Nos. 3 - Guilty - 2 years imprisonment
Accused Nos.5 & 7 - Guilty - 3 years imprisonment
Accused Nos. 8 & 9 - Guilty - 5 years imprisonment
Accused No. 10 - Guilty - 7 years imprisonment
Accused Nos. 4 and 6 - Not guilty
There was no printed finding and sentence passed by the judges in the court.

Charges:
First charge: (Against No. 1, No. 3, No. 4, No. 6, and No. 2 only)
Committing a war crime in that they together while in charge of Indian prisoners of war en route for and at Bebelthuap Palau between 20 Apr 43 and 10 Sep 45 in violation of the laws and usages of war failed to care or provide food, clothing and medical attention for and permitted abetted and took part in the beating, overworking and general maltreatment of the said prisoners by others under their command as a consequence whereof the said prisoners contracted disease and were otherwise weakened in health and a number of them died.

Second charge: (Against No. 1, No. 2 and No. 10 only)
Committing a war crime in that they together at Babelthuap Palau on or about 25 Apr 45 in violation of the laws and usages of war conspired to execute by beheading and did so execute Sepoy Mohammed Shafi at that time an Indian prisoner of war of the Imperial Japanese Army.

Third charge: (Against No. 1, No. 2, No. 5, No. 7, No. 8 and No. 9 only)
Committing a war crime in that they together at Babelthuap Palau on or about 27 Apr 44 in violation of the laws and usages of war flogged and otherwise maltreated Indian prisoners of war at that time in their charge as a result whereof eight of the said prisoners were so injured that they died.

Facts relating to the several charges:
First charge:
On the 5 May 43, 520 Indian prisoners of war sailed from Singapore on the "Thames Maru", under the command of the first accused. The ship reached its destination, Babelthuap in the Palau Islands, on 8 June 43, and remained there until Sep 45. All the accused were from time to time officers or NCO's in charge of this party. The conditions on board the Thames Maru beggared description. It was overcrowded and unhygienic. There were only 2 latrines provided for 2000 Indian troops on board. This resulted in dysentery and no medical supplies were provided. Food was plain rice in inadequate quantities and maggot infested radishes. This resulted in a number of prisoners dying during the first months on Babelthuap. On the island, the prisoners received similar treatment to that on the ship, aggravated by beatings by the Japanese. Throughout, the prisoners were doing heavy manual work while surviving on food that would only be sufficient if they were not doing any manual work. The number of prisoners increased to 550 over time, and of these men, 117 died, mostly of beri-beri and dysentery.

Second charge:
During Apr 45, 15 prisoners went on a working detachment under the command of accused 10. Some worked out a plan to escape that was discovered by accused 10. He took one of them away named Mohd Shafi. Shafi was first beaten by the accused 2 and 10. Following that, he was made to sit in a trench by accused 10 and beheaded by accused 2.

Third charge:
During Apr 44, sugar had been stolen from the company's stores and the Japanese conducted a search during the course of which they discovered some sugar in the possession of the Indian POW's. Some 30 or 40 Indians were beaten by the 2nd, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th accused.

Accused handling of the charges:
Accused 1 denies that he knew anything of the beatings that occurred in the first charge, and that he had many duties to perform and delegated responsibility to his officers and NCO's. He was not in a position of command on the ship and could not do anything to alleviate the conditions.

Accused 1 and 2 denied taking part in the beatings that occurred in the third charge.
Accused 10 was accused of 5 different things relating to the 2nd charge but only admits to one, which is accompanying accused 2 to the execution. The court did not believe his denials.

Accused 3, under cross-examination, revealed an attitude towards the prisoners consonant with the allegations made against him. He denied the allegations against him and claimed that the Indian doctors were primarily responsible for the prisoners' health and he assisted them as far as he could, even exceeding his duty as understood in the Japanese army, by reporting deficiencies of food and clothing and obtaining medical stores.

The other accused members received lighter sentences and their handling of the charges in court was not recorded in the outline of the case. It is assumed, however, based on the denials of the other accused, that they denied the charges against them as well.

Main issues of the case raised by prosecution and defence:

1. Geneva Convention of 1929.
The defence argued that Japan never subscribed to the Geneva Convention and therefore cannot be bound by it, and that no evidence of its subsequent accession to it has been adduced. Therefore, the Japanese were in no way bound by the provisions of that Convention relating to the "laws and usages of war".

The prosecution argued that the provisions of the Geneva Convention 1929 were part of the laws and usages of war, and Japan was certainly bound to observe international law and could not escape the obligation to do so by refusing to subscribe to it. In any case, Japan did subscribe to the Hague Regulations of 1907, which provide that prisoners of war must be humanely treated. Japan is also bound morally to observe the Geneva Convention 1929 since she announced in Feb 42 that she would apply it to British, Dominion and Indian troops.

This case was tried under British military law and the law of war, which means that the Japanese were to abide by international law and the Geneva Convention when dealing with prisoners of war. Thus they were guilty of several articles of the Geneva Convention, as argued by the prosecution.

2. The status of the Indians
The defence argued that the Indians concerned were voluntary collaborators with the Japanese and had forfeited their rights as prisoners of war. They were governed not by the laws and usages of war but by the regulations of the Japanese for the discipline of the auxiliary force known as HEIHO.

The prosecution argued that the Indians were prisoners of war under the Japanese. The Indians that came to be in the Heiho only did so after great pressure to join the Indian National Army, and they did not do so voluntarily.

This is an important point, because, depending on the Indian's status, the rights the Japanese have towards them are different and the treatment that they were subjected to can be interpreted differently. As POW's, they were under the Geneva Convention and international law. As Heiho, they were collaborators and, according to the Japanese, under Japanese military law. The final verdict took the prosecution's stance that they were POW's.

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:25

Singapore Cases: No. 235/952
Hachisuka Case


Accused:
(1) Capt. HACHISUKA Kunifusa
(2) Lieut YAMAKAWA Yasuji
(3) Lieut NAKAI Kosuke
(4) Sjt ITO Katsusaburo
(5) Sjt ONISHI Shigezo
(6) Sjt KURATA Takeo
(7) Guard SHIRAKAWA Rakushaku
(8) Guard TAKAYAMA Haremitsu
(9) Guard MATSUMOTO Harayoshi
(10) Guard KOBAYASHI Torao
(11) Guard ISHIHARA Tatsuo
(12) Guard RAYAMA Tokuichi
(13) Guard OHARA Seiichiro
(14) Guard KANEYAMA Shoryu
(15) Guard KANESHIRO Kiei
(16) Guard WATAI Jiro
(17) Guard KIMURA Tasei
(18) Guard KUREKAWA Zentaku
(19) Guard YASUDA Yoshi
(20) Guard TOMODA Shakujin
(21) Guard OKANO Sakae
(22) Guard MIYAMA Takamine
(23) Guard KANEMOTO Yoshio
(24) Guard KUWA Ryushoku

of the Imperial Japanese Army

Place and Date of Trial: Singapore, 24-27, 29-30 July; 1-3, 6-9, 12-16, 19-22,
26-30 August; 5-6 September 1946

Finding and Sentence:

Accused Charge - Not guilty Charge - Guilty Sentence passed Final sentence
1 - 1st charge Death by Hanging No change
2 - 1st, 2nd (w/ exception) charge Death by Hanging No change
3 - 1st, 4th charge Death by Hanging 15 years imprisonment
4 3rd 1st, 7th charge Death by Hanging No change
5 5th 1st, 6th charge Death by Hanging No change
6 - 1st, 5th, 6th charge Death by Hanging 15 years imprisonment
7 - 1st, 5th charge 18 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
8 5th 1st charge 20 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
9 - 1st charge Life imprisonment 15 years imprisonment
10 - 1st, 5th, 8th, 9th charge Death by Hanging No change
11 - 1st, 5th, 6th charge 20 years imprisonment No change
12 5th 1st charge Life imprisonment No change
13 - 1st, 5th, 6th charge Death by Hanging Life imprisonment
14 - 1st, 5th charge Death by Hanging Life imprisonment
15 1st 6th charge 12 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
16 - 1st, 5th charge 20 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
17 - 1st, 5th charge 20 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
18 - 1st charge Life imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
19 1st 6th charge 10 years imprisonment No change
20 - 1st charge 3 years imprisonment No change
21 - 1st charge 15 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
22 1st - Acquitted -
23 - 1st charge 15 years imprisonment 10 years imprisonment
24 1st - Acquitted -

Exception (for 2nd charge): Guilty except the words: "resulting in the deaths of many."

Charges: 1st charge: (against all the accused)
Committing a War Crime in that they, at Palembang, between the 27th July, 1944 and 25th June, 1945, the accused HACHISUKA Kunifusa (Accused 1) as Commandant of Prisoner of War Camps Group, the accused YAMAKAWA Yasuji (Accused 2) as Intendance Officer Prisoner of War Camps Group, and accused NAKAI Kosuke (Accused 3), as the Medical Officer Prisoner of War Camps Group, and the other named accused as members of the staff of SOENGEI GERON Prisoner of War Camp, all responsible for the well-being of the Prisoners of War interned therein, were, in violation of the laws and usages of War, together concerned as parties to the ill-treatment of the said Prisoners of War, resulting in the deaths of many and in physical and mental sufferings to many others.

2nd charge: (against Accused 2 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he at Palembang, Sumatra, between December 1943 and 27th July 1944 when Intendance Officer of the Prisoner of War Camp, responsible for the well-being of the persons interned in Chung Wa, Mulo School and Soengei Geron Camp, in violation of the laws and usages of War, ill-treated Prisoners of War interned in the Camps aforesaid, resulting in the deaths of many and in physical suffering to many others.

3rd charge: (against Accused 4 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he at Palembang, between August 1942 and December 1942, when in charge of the Intendance Department of the Prisoner of War Camps Group, responsible for the well-being of the persons interned in Chungwa and Mulo School Camps, in violation of the laws and usages of War, ill-treated the said Prisoners of War, resulting in physical suffering to many of them.

4th charge: (against Accused 3 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he at Palembang, Sumatra, between 30th September 1942 and 26th July 1944, when in medical charge of the Prisoner of War Camps Group responsible for the well-being of Prisoners of War interned in Chungwa, Mulo School and Soengei Geron Camps, in violation of the laws and usages of War, grossly ill-treated Prisoners of War in his medical care by willfully neglecting to provide proper medical attention and available medicine and drugs to sick Prisoners of War, permitting sick Prisoners of War to remain in unhygienic conditions, as a result of which many of the said Prisoners of War died and many others underwent physical suffering.

5th charge: (against Accused 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 only)
Committing a War Crime in that they at Palembang, Sumatra, between 15th March 1943 and 26th July 1944, when members of the Staff of the Prisoner of War Camps Group, responsible for the well-being of Prisoners of War interned therein, were, in violation of the laws and usages of War, together concerned as parties to the ill-treatment of the said Prisoners of War contributing to the deaths of some and causing the physical suffering of others of the said Prisoners of War.

6th charge: (against Accused 5, 6, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 only)
Committing a War Crime in that they at Palembang, Sumatra, between the 26th June, 1945 and the 18th August, 1945, when members of the staff of Palembang Prisoner of War Camps Group, Soengei Geron, responsible for the well-being of the Prisoners of War interned therein, were, in violation of the laws and usages of War, together concerned as parties to the ill-treatment of the said Prisoners of War contributing to the deaths of some of them and causing physical suffering to others.

7th charge: (against Accused 4 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he at Palembang, between 1st July and 18th August 1945, when in charge of the Intendance Department of the Prisoner of War Camps Group, responsible for the well-being of the Prisoners of War interned therein, was, in violation of the laws and usages of War, concerned in the ill-treatment of the said Prisoners of War, resulting in the deaths of some Prisoners of War and causing physical suffering to many others.

8th charge: (against Accused 10 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he at Pankalan Balai, Sumatra, between November 1943 and April 1944, when a member of the staff of Pankalan Balai Prisoner of War Camp responsible for the well-being of the Prisoners of War interned therein, was, in violation of the laws and usages of War, concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners of War, resulting in injury and suffering to them.

9th charge: (against Accused 10 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he in Pakan Baroe, Sumatra, between September 1944 and August 1945, when a member of the staff of Pakan Baroe Prisoner of War Camp responsible for the well-being of the Prisoners of War interned therein, was, in violation of the laws and usages of War, concerned in the ill-treatment of Prisoners of War, resulting in injury and physical suffering to them.

Facts relating to the several charges: Facts relating to the case were summarized in these excerpts from the Abstract of Evidence:
1. The first seven charges in the Charge Sheet refer to the Prisoner of War Camps in Chungwa, Mulo School and Sungei Geron; all in the Palembang area, in which camps all the accused were members of the staff during the periods mentioned.

2. In March 1942, Allied Prisoners of War were sent to two camps, Chungwa and Mulo School. In the School were the majority of the British Officer prisoners and Dutch Officers and men, while in Chungwa, Australian and British troops together with a few Malay troops lived with 18 British and Dominion Officers to look after them. During March and April 1944 the Prisoners of War from these two camps, were transferred to Soengei Geron Camp, some 6 kilometres from Palembang, and they remained in this camp until the Japanese surrender.

3. A Japanese Commandant was responsible for the camps in the Palembang area and on 7 July 1944, Accused 2 became the Commandant, in which command he remained until 2 June 1945. Between 27 July 1944 and 25 June 1945 the accused named in the first charge, all members of the staff of the Camps were responsible for the ill-treatment of the Prisoners in their care. The ill-treatment took the various forms of mass beatings up by Korean guards, individual beatings up using fists, feet, sticks, rifle butt and any weapon at hand, exposure of Prisoners during the working hours owing to non issue of available essential clothing and exposure of Prisoners in mass parades held at night for long periods without adequate clothing. There were other forms of willful ill-treatment as follows:

(a) A basic ration scale was laid down. This was reduced twice and in May 1945, the time of the second reduction, the basic daily rice issue per man was 300 grammes. Allowing for deficiency in weight in the rice sacks, which on average was about 10%, the average daily basic issue was 280 grammes.
The basic rate, however, was not issued to each Prisoner, but was made according to the type of work done by the man. Officially heavy duty men were to receive 400 g., light duty men 250 g., and sick men 150 g. The Prisoner of War doctors insisted that the sick must receive 200 g. each so that the heavy workers received less than 400 g.
Such a ration issue was considerably less than that received by Japanese garrison troops and clearly was insufficient to maintain health. A disturbing factor to be remarked is that for a sick Prisoner already undernourished, to cease working and enter hospital meant that he lost his heavy duty rations and received a daily maximum of 200 g. rice. This was tantamount to a death sentence and particularly during the latter part of 1945 many instances occurred of men working until the very day they died.
The Japanese Officers, N.C.O's and Korean guards who staffed the camp knew this situation. Letters sent by the British Camp Commandants and Doctors, begging for additional food, were either never answered or rejected. Verbal complaints received no consideration.

(b) Food was available in plenty in Palembang. There was sufficient money in the camp to have assured a steady flow of food which would have prevented the death rate which rose enormously between May-August 1945. The purchase of this food was forbidden.
Whenever a kindly guard smuggled a little food into the camp, discovery meant severe punishment. Prisoners were forced to steal food whenever they could. This also entailed punishment.
In Sept 1944, accused 2 closed the canteen for a month, because of verbal complaint made by a Prisoner to the accused 2. Prisoner's rations, particularly fresh vegetables, were allowed to rot deliberately in the store and then issued when inedible. Prisoner's rations were sold, given away, stolen and fed to animals.
(c) Small private plots of ground were cultivated by the Prisoners of War, and the little quantity of vegetables grown was for the Prisoner's own use. In May 1945 Accused 1 confiscated the plots. This was a severe blow, not because of the food itself, but from a psychological standpoint.
Nearly 300 Prisoners died between Jan 1 and Sept 20, 1945. The evidence of the Prisoners of War Doctors show that these deaths resulted from malnutrition and from disease with malnutrition as the basic cause. Accused 1, 2 and 4 must therefore bear responsibility. A contributory named case was that of the beatings of the guards named in the first charge, who must also accept responsibility for their share in the deaths.

4. For the most part Accused 1 took little interest in the workings of his camp. Regular complaints were made to him but conditions nevertheless deteriorated.

Accused 1 stole Red Cross supplies in concert with Accused 2, 4 and others; certain working parties were forced to work from 8:30 a.m. all through the day until 1 a.m. the following morning, several days each month. Accused 1, on his arrival in July 1944 enforced a previous Formation order previously neglected. This order insisted that all British officers should give orders to their men in the Japanese language and Accused 2 required this order enforced. Protests were made to no avail. Many misunderstandings resulted from this and provided the Korean guards and Japanese N.C.O's with additional grounds for beatings.

Accused 3 paid little attention to the sick who were housed under disgraceful conditions. There was an inadequate staff, little equipment, were no mattresses, blankets or mosquito nets. Sanitation was primitive and conditions particularly in the dysentery ward were horrible. Korean guards on at least 4 occasions, beat up ill patients in the hospital and complaints to Accused 3 met with no results.

In May - June 1944 men suffering badly from dysentery were to be brought into Sungei Geron Camp. Protests were made by the Surgeon Lieut. and the Camp Interpreter, explaining that the epidemic was certain unless isolation wards were built immediately to house these men. Accused 3 refused and in fact a dysentery epidemic did result and a number of Prisoners died. Until this date cases of dysentery had been infrequent but thereafter dysentery became endemic in the camp.
Accused 3 knew the Prisoners were dying of disease arising from their low resistance caused by malnutrition and in response to frequent complaints to him, said the provision of food was Accused 2's responsibility. He was entreated to press the matter to the Japanese authorities, but he said he was unable to do so.

The Japanese Intendance Sergeant, Accused 4, stole and sold the Prisoners' rations, withheld rations and vegetables until inedible, refused to issue clothing and bedding which were available in his stores and stole Red Cross parcels. He was seen handing in Prisoners' rations to comfort house girls in Palembang.
In June 1945 he ordered a parade of the whole camp late at night. Sick men were forced to attend and the parade continued for some 4 hours. In the opinion of witnesses this parade accelerated the deaths of some of the men.
Accused 4 had mistresses in Palembang and had drunken parties nearly every night. It was common gossip in the camp that he was able to do this owing to the proceeds from his sale of rations, clothing and his other transactions.

Accused 5 and 6 were consistently concerned in the beating up of the Prisoners of War. The Korean guards named as accused were all concerned in a consistent policy of humiliating, degrading, beating and torturing Prisoners. Days rarely passed without a beating by some guard or another.

5. The 5th and 6th charges relate to offences committed against Prisoners before and after accused 1 took over the camp, by the accused guards and N.C.O's mentioned in these charges. Beatings were particularly frequent after May 1945 when men were desperate for food and a consistent policy of ill-treatment had long been established by the guards and sanctioned by the Japanese officers and Sergeants.

The 8th charge against Accused 10 relates to offences committed by this guard when a member of the staff of Pakaln Balai Prisoners of War Camp, some forty miles from Palembang, between November 1943 and April 1944. This guard was known for his evil temper and the violent beatings he administered.
The 9th charge involved the ill-treatment of Prisoners of Pakan Baroe between Sept.1944 and August 1945 by Accused 10.

Accused handling of the charges: The accused mostly denied the charges against them. In some cases, they admitted to part of the charges against them but always with a defence, such as their efforts in improving the conditions of the POWs, and actions according to superior's orders.
Main issues of the case raised by prosecution and defence:

Due to the length and complexity of the closing addresses, I will deal with the defence and prosecution's issues and arguments separately.

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:27

Synopsis of Case No. 235/818
From the Trials of Japanese War Crimes in Singapore
Conducted by the British Military


Harada et al.
Accused
(1) Vice Admiral TEIZO Hara
(2) Lieut KUNICHI Harada
(3) Sub Lt KATSUICHI Ushijima
(4) Lieut SEIICHI Yanagimoto
(5) Capt SHIGEICHI Shimazaki
(6) Lieut TANEJI Toyoshima

All of the Japanese Imperial Army

Place and Date of Trial
Singapore, 25-28 Feb, 1-2 March 1946
Finding and Sentence
Accused Nos. 1, 5 & 6 - Not guilty - acquitted
Accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4 - Guilty - Death by hanging

Note on Finding/Sentence
Ref to Guilty parties: "except that in violation of the laws and usages of war they carried out the execution of the nine Burmese civilians in an unnecessarily cruel manner."
There was no printed finding and sentence passed by the judges in the court.

Charges
Committing a war crime in that they in the Andaman Islands during August
1945 in violation of the laws and usages of war were concerned in the killing of
nine Burmese civilians resident in the above Islands.

Facts Relating to The Charge
At the beginning of August 1945 nine Burmese who attempted to escape from the Andaman Islands in boats stolen from the Japanese, were captured by Accused 2 at Stewart Sound. Upon requesting instructions Accused 2 was ordered to make further investigations and did so. Accused 1, 5 and 6 held a "Military Law-Breakers Trial Meeting" at Port Blair. The Burmese were not brought from Stewart Sound to Port Blair for this so-called trial nor were their interests represented in any way. The "trial" consisted of an examination of the reports by signal from accused 2 and a demand by accused 6 (the prosecutor) that a death sentence be passed. The Burmese were sentenced to death by accused 1.
Orders for their execution were transmitted to Accused 2 and on 13 August the nine Burmese were taken to Stewart Sound and executed. On orders from accused 2 the execution squad bayoneted 6 of the Burmese to death. Accused 2, 3 and 4 beheaded the remaining 3 with swords. The bodies were buried and the executions reported to Naval HQ Port Blair.

Accused Handling of the Charge
The Accused generally admitted to the charge, as the evidence for the prosecution consisted mainly of statements made by the accused themselves and the facts alleged by the prosecution were admitted.

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:28

Singapore Cases: No. 235/ 963
Ishida Case


Accused:
(1) Lt/Gen. ISHIDA Eiguma
(2) Col. NAKAMURA Shigeo
(3) Col. ISHII Tamie
(4) Lt/Col. YANAGITA Shoichi
(5) Major. CHIDA Sotomatsu
of the Imperial Japanese Army

Place and Date of Trial: Singapore, 21-25, 28, 31 October; 1, 7-8, 12-15, 18-21, 25-27
November; and 2-3 December 1946

Finding and Sentence:

Accused Charge - Not guilty Charge - Guilty Sentence
1 1st, 4th charges 2nd, 3rd charges 10 years imprisonment
2 - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th charges Death by Hanging
3 - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th (w/ exception) charges Death by Hanging
4 - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th charges 20 years imprisonment
5 - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th (w/ exception) charges 10 years imprisonment remitted to 5 years imprisonment

Exceptions: 1) 7th charge: Accused 3 found Guilty with the exception that the dates should be read 1st day of Dec 44 and the 28th of Feb 45 and the words "resulting in the deaths of 20 Prisoners of War and physical injury to several others."
2) 8th charge: Accused 5 found Guilty with the exception of the words "resulting in the deaths of approximately 104 Prisoners of War and physical injury to many others."
There is no printed sentence and finding that exists.

Charges: 1st charge: (Against all the accused)
Committing a War Crime in that they between 1st October 1942 and the 1st August 1944 while engaged in the administration of the British, Australian and Dutch Prisoners of War employed in the construction and maintenance of the Burma-Siam Railway were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoners of War resulting in the deaths of many of the said Prisoners of War and physical suffering by many others of the said Prisoners of War.

2nd charge: (Against all the accused)
Committing a War Crime in that they between the 1st October 1942 and the 1st August 1944 were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the employment of the labour of British, Australian and Dutch Prisoners of War in work having connection with the operation of the War that is to say the construction and maintenance of a railway from NONG PLADUK to THANBYUZAYAT (commonly known as the BURMA-SIAM Railway) for the purpose of transporting supplies and munitions to the Japanese Forces fighting in BURMA.

3rd charge: (Against all the accused)
Committing a War Crime in that they between the 1st October 1942 and the 1st August 1944 while engaged in the administration of British, Australian and Dutch Prisoners of War employed in the construction and maintenance of the Burma-Siam Railway were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the employment of the labour of the said Prisoners of War in work which was excessive having regard to the rank and capacity of the said Prisoners of War.

4th charge: (Against all the accused)
Committing a War Crime in that they between the 1st October 1942 and the 1st August 1944 while engaged in the administration of British, Australian and Dutch Prisoners of War employed in the construction and maintenance of the BURMA-SIAM Railway were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the internment of the said Prisoners of War in conditions which were unhealthy and unhygienic.

5th charge: (Against accused 3 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he at TARSAO Prisoner of War Camp in Siam on a date between 1st August 1943 and 1st December 1943, when engaged in the administration of Prisoners of War employed in the construction of the BURMA-SIAM Railway was, concerned in the killing of Pte. HILTON of the Sherwood Foresters, British Prisoner of War.

6th charge: (Against accused 4 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he at CHUNGKAI Prisoner of War Camp in SIAM on or about the 27th day of March 1943 when engaged in the administration of Prisoners of War employed in the construction of the BURMA-SIAM Railway, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the killing of Sgt. KELLY, of the R.A.M.C., Sgt REAY and Fusilier KENCALLY-TIMOTHY both of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, and Pte. FITZGERALD of the R.A.O.C., British Prisoners of War.

7th charge: (Against accused 3 only)
Committing a War Crime in that he in SIAM between the 1st day of August 1944 and the 28th day of February 1945, when in command of a group of Prisoners of War, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the employment of British, Australian and Dutch Prisoners of War at TAMAKAN Camp in work having connection with the operation of the way that is to

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:30

Synopsis of Case No. 235/941
From the Trials of Japanese War Crimes in Singapore
Conducted by the British Military


Kasai

Accused
(1) Capt. KASAI Tsuguo
(2) W.O. MAEDA Kiyoshi
(3) S/M. SAHARA Takeshi
(4) S/M. CHIKAZAWA Masaka
(5) Cpl. HARADA Kichiji
(6) Sup. Pte. KOORI Takeo
(7) Sup. Pte. AKUTAGAWA Sunao
(8) Sup. Pte. MORISAKA Nobuo
(9) Civ. TOAKANO Ryunosuke
(10) Civ. MARUGAME Tsutomu

All of the Imperial Japanese Army, under the command of the Kempeitai.

Place and Date of Trial
Singapore, 14-17 Oct 1946
Finding and Sentence
Accused 1 - Guilty - Death by hanging
Accused 2 - Guilty - Death by hanging
Accused 3 - Guilty - 5 years imprisonment
Accused 4 - Guilty - 5 years imprisonment
Accused 5 - Guilty - 18 months imprisonment
Accused 6 - Guilty - 1 year imprisonment
Accused 7 - Guilty - 6 months imprisonment
Accused 8 - Guilty - 1 year imprisonment
Accused 9 - Guilty - 6 months imprisonment
Accused 10 - Guilty - 6 months imprisonment

Note on Finding/Sentence
The finding and sentence was in the case file as announced during the court proceedings.

Charges
Committing a war crime, in that they, at Miri, Sarawak, on or about the 13th June 1945, being members of or under the command of the Kempeitai stationed at Miri, Sarawak, were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the killing of 28 civilian residents of Miri, including ABBOTT, BELL, JOHNSON, BODESTEIN, SOHAN SINGH, WARUDI, FUJA SINGH, LIM SIONG TEK, LAI KOK CHING, LEE MANG POOK, YO KI, CHONG EN FUI, CHIANG HO, KUNJI GOYA, SUBAR SINGH, ASAL, LING SHO TEHU, JOEL PAUL, TENG ANN, LIEW YU CHAI, YONG PIN CHEE.
Facts Relating to The Charge
Accused No. 1 was the officer commanding the Kempeitai section at Miri. At the end of April, 1945 he was ordered by Col. MACHIGUCHI, Chief of the Kempeitai in Borneo, to arrest all well-known anti-Japanese elements. In consequence of this order, he ordered the arrest on 8th May 1945 of 15 civilian residents of Miri, who were lodged in Kempeitai cells. Statements were taken from them and other investigations conducted, and a report submitted on 20th May 1945 to Col. Machiguchi at Jesselton. Subsequently, communications with Jesselton were cut, and on 21st may 1945 the Miri Kempeitai came under command of the Divisional Commander at Brunei.
On 8th June 1945 communications with Brunei were cut, and the Miri Kempeitai came under command of Col. AIKYO, the Garrison Commander at Miri. On 10th June 1945 accused No. 1 ordered the arrest of another 13 civilian residents of Miri, about whose activities information had been gleaned in the course of the previous investigations. On 12th June at 1100 hrs, he submitted a report on the second batch of arrests to Col. Aikyo.

At 1400 hrs he was summoned to Col. Aikyo, who ordered him to execute immediately all the 28 civilians in his custody. He returned to his Unit and informed accused No. 2 (W/O. Adjutant) of the order he had received. He hesitated to issue instructions for the implementation of the order that day, but the following morning he ordered accused No. 2 to assemble a firing squad and make the necessary arrangements to carry out the execution as ordered by Col. Aikyo.
Accused No. 2 accordingly assembled 18 persons, including himself and accused Nos. 3 to 10; and had the 28 civilians brought to the place of execution. Accused No. 1 was in command of the execution party and he issued the commands to fire the 3 volleys, which killed all the 28 civilians. Accused No. 2 was present in a supervisory capacity; accused No. 3 was present as a guard. There was no evidence that either of these accused fired a shot. All the 7 other accused fired as members of the firing squad.

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:31

Synopsis of Case No. 235/913
From the Trials of Japanese War Crimes in Singapore
Conducted by the British Military


Kokubo

Accused
(1) Lieutenant. KOKUBO Nagataro
(2) Sergeant. TERRAKOSHI Tsuneo
(3) Korean. TAKAYAMA Nobomutsu

of the Japanese Imperial Army

Place and Date of Trial
Singapore, 28-29 June, and 1-2, 5-6 & 9 July 1946

Finding and Sentence
Accused Charge - Not guilty Charge - Guilty Sentence
1 - 1st charge, 4th charge, 3rd charge Death by hanging
2 - 1st charge, 3rd charge Death by hanging
3 1st charge 2nd charge Death by hanging

Note on Finding/Sentence
2nd charge committed by Accused 3 was not confirmed. There was no death warrant found in the case file for him.
There is no printed sentence and finding of the court that exists.

Charges
First Charge: (Against all the accused)
Committing a war crime in that they at 211/228 KILO and 230/248 KILO Prisoner of War camps SIAM between 1 April 1943 and 30 November 1943 being members of the staff of the said camps in violation of the laws and usages of war were together concerned in the ill-treatment of British, Australian and Dutch Prisoners of War interned therein resulting in the deaths of some of the said Prisoners of War and bodily suffering to others of the said Prisoners of War.


Second Charge: (Against Accused 3 only)
Committing a war crime in the he at 211/228 KILO Prisoner of War camp SIAM between the months of May and July 1943 being a member of the staff of the said camp in violation of the laws and usages of war ill-treated one Signalman THOMPSON a British Prisoner of War interned therein resulting in the death of the said Prisoner of War.

Third Charge: (Against Accused 1 and 2 only)
Committing a war crime in that they at CHUNGKAI Prisoner of War camp SIAM between 1 November 1943 and 28 February 1945 being members of the staff of the said camp in violation of the laws and usages of war were concerned in the ill-treatment of British and Australian and Dutch Prisoners of War interned therein causing bodily suffering to many of them.

Fourth Charge: (Against Accused 1 only)
Committing a war crime in that he at various places in SIAM and in particular at NAKON NYOK Prisoner of War camp between 1 October 1942 and 15 August 1945 when employed as a member of the staff of the said camp in violation of the laws and usages of war was concerned in the ill-treatment of British, Australian, American and Dutch Prisoners of War interned in the said camp causing bodily suffering to many of them.

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:32

Singapore Cases: No. 235/943
Kudo Case


Accused:
(1) Maj. KUDO Hikosaku
(2) 2/Lt. TAKANO Suteo
(3) 2/Lt. YAGUCHI Sanya
(4) 2/Lt. TAKINO Shoichi
(5) S/M. MUKAEDA Takeo
(6) L/Cpl. ONODERA Shoji
(7) L/Cpl. YASUDA Kinichiro
(8) Sup. Pte. NISHIMURA Katsumi
(9) Sup. Pte. NAKAMURA Jiro
(10) Sup. Pte. TSUKAMOTO Chuji
(11) Sup. Pte. FUJITA Hikoichi
(12) Sup. Pte. KATO Takeo

of the Imperial Japanese Army

Place and Date of Trial: Singapore, 13, 16-20, 23-24, 26-27, 30 September
and 1-4, 7-9, 11, 18 October 46

Finding and Sentence:

Accused Charge - Not guilty Charge - Guilty Sentence
1 2nd charge 1st, 3rd charges Death by Hanging
2 - 1st, 2nd charges Imprisonment for Life
3 1st charge - Acquittal
4 - 1st charge Imprisonment for 5 years
5 - 1st charge Imprisonment for 2 years
6 - 1st, 2nd charges Death by Hanging
7 2nd charge 1st, 3rd charges Imprisonment for 20 years
8 - 1st, 3rd charges Imprisonment for 10 years
9 - 1st charge with special findings Imprisonment for 6 months
10 - 1st, 3rd charges Imprisonment for 15 years
11 - 1st, 3rd charges Imprisonment for 3 years
12 - 1st charge with special findings Imprisonment for 9 months

Special findings: Guilty with the exception of the words "and the deaths of many of
them".

Charges: 1st charge: (Against all the accused)
Committing a war crime in that they in SIAM and BURMA between 1 August 1943 and 31 March 1945 when in the service of the Occupying Power as members of the 19th Ambulance Corps (commonly known as the "Kudo Butai") being responsible for the medical care and attention of the civilian inhabitants of occupied territories employed in, and in connection with, the construction and maintenance of the Burma-Siam Railway, and the wives and families of the said civilian inhabitants, in violation of the laws and usages of war, were together concerned in the ill-treatment of the said civilian inhabitants and their wives and families resulting in their physical suffering and the deaths of many of them.

2nd charge: (Against Accused Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 only)
Committing a war crime in that they in SIAM and BURMA between 1 August 1943 and 31 March 1945 when in the service of the Occupying Power as members of the 19th Ambulance Corps (commonly know as the "Kudo Butai") being responsible for the medical care and attention of the civilian inhabitants of occupied territories employed in, and in connection with the Burma-Siam Railway, in violation of the laws and usages of war, were together concerned in the willful killing of several of the said civilian inhabitants whose names are unknown.

3rd charge: (Against Accused Nos. 1, 7, 8, 10 and 11 only)
Committing a war crime in that they at KANBURI in SIAM between 1 August 1943 and 31 March 1945, when members of the 19th Ambulance Corps (commonly know as the "Kudo Butai"), being responsible for the medical care and attention of the civilian inhabitants of occupied territories employed in, and in connection with, the construction and maintenance of the Burma-Siam Railway, in violation of the laws and usages of war, were together concerned in the ill-treatment of British and Dutch Prisoners of War employed to assist in the medical care and attention aforesaid causing physical suffering to many of the said Prisoners of War.

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:34

Singapore Cases: No. 235/911
Mizutani Case


Accused:
Major MIZUTANI Totare
of the Imperial Japanese Army

Place and Date of Trial: Singapore, 20-25, 27-29 May and 3-4 June 1946

Finding and Sentence: Accused - Guilty of all 3 charges - Death by hanging
The finding and sentence is found in the statement by the court following the court proceedings.

Charges: First Charge:
Committing a war crime in that he between 18 January 1943 and 14 November 1943, in Burma, in violation of the laws and usages of War when engaged in the administration of British, American, Australian and Dutch Prisoners of War employed in the construction of the Burma-Siam Railway, was concerned in the inhumane treatment of the said Prisoners of War resulting in the deaths of hundreds of the said Prisoners of War and physical suffering by many others of the said Prisoners of War.

Second Charge:
Committing a war crime in that he in the month of July 1943, at the Camp near APERON, in Burma, known as 83 Kilo Camp, occupied by Japanese and Prisoners of War engaged in the construction of the Burma-Siam Railway, in violation of the laws and usages of war, being in the service of the occupying Power, ill-treated a Burmese civilian inhabitant of the occupied territory causing physical suffering to the said inhabitant.

Third Charge:
Committing a war crime in that he on 31 December 1944 at TAMUANG Prisoner of War Camp, Siam, in violation of the laws and usages of war, killed No. 4272350 Fusilier D.W. WANTY, Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, a British Prisoner of War interned in the said Camp.

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:35

Singapore Cases: No. 235/844
Nagaosa Case


Accused:
(1) Chief Petty Officer NAGAOSA Hirio
(2) Petty Officer TADA Miyoshi
(3) Petty Officer OZAKI Fukuichi
(4) Sjt OKAMURA Senichi
(5) Sjt HAYASHI Yasuo
(6) Civilian MITSUBASHI Mataichi
(7) Civ. Interpreter HASHIDA Susuma
(8) Civ. Interpreter MIKAMI Yoshiharu

all of the Japanese Forces

Place and Date of Trial: Singapore, 22-25, 29-30 Apr and 1-3, 7 May 1946

Finding and Sentence:
Accused Charge - Not guilty Charge - Guilty Sentence
1 1st charge 2nd, 3rd charge (w/ exceptions) Death by hanging
2 - 1st charge (w/ exceptions) Death by hanging
3 - 1st, 2nd charge (w/ exceptions) Death by hanging
4 1st charge 2nd charge (w/ exceptions) 15 years imprisonment
5 1st, 4th charge 2nd charge (w/ exceptions) 15 years imprisonment
6 - 1st, 2nd, 3rd charge (w/ exceptions) Death by hanging
7 1st charge 2nd, 3rd charge (w/ exceptions) Death by hanging
8 1st, 2nd charge - Acquitted

Exceptions:
Charge 1: (applies to accused 2, 3 and 6)
The court, finds you guilty of the First Charge except to omit the names Sumitra Davi and Mohamed Baksh.

Charge 2: (applies to accused 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7)
The court, finds you guilty of the Second Charge except that the ill-treatment of the civilian residents of Port Blair resulted in the death of Dewan Singh only and that Banta Singh be omitted from the list of those whose ill-treatment resulted in physical suffering.

Charge 3: (applies to 1, 6 and 7)
The court, finds you guilty of the Third Charge except to omit the names DABRINDA NATH and ANGAD from the list of those whose ill-treatment caused them physical suffering.

A printed finding and sentence passed by the judges in the court exists and was attached to the court proceedings.


Charges:
First charge: (Against all the accused)
Committing a war crime, in that they at PORT BLAIR between the 22nd August 1944 and the 19th August 1945 being in the service of the Occupying Power were, in violation of the laws and usages of war together concerned in the ill-treatment of civilian residents of PORT BLAIR aforesaid, thereby causing physical suffering to the said persons an din particular to:
ABDUL GOFOOR and his wife, MURARI LALL, SUMITRA DEVI, RAMA KRISHNA, ABDUL RAHMAN, PYARI MOHAN, SIRI KRISHNA, JANKI, RAJ KUMAR, PYARE LALL, MOHD BAKSH, RASAI, RATNAM, IMAD HARI KISHEN, JANG BAHADUR, LODI, AHMED, BHAGWAN DAS, DAYA NAND, VINKET GIRI, SHIV CHARAN, NIRANJAN LALL.

Second charge: (Against Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 only)
Committing a war crime, in that they, at PORT BLAIR between 10th October 1943 and the 31st March 1944, being in the service of the Occupying Power, were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of civilian residents of PORT BLAIR aforesaid resulting in the death of:
SANGARA SINGH, BAKSHI SINGH, SANGARA SINGH (driver), SANTA SINGH, SHER SINGH, BACHAN SINGH, HIRA SINGH, POKHAR SINGH, KOUR SINGH, DULIP SINGH, DEWAN SINGH, LACHMAN DES SANKIWAR and NAWAB ALI,
And in the physical suffering to other civilian residents and in particular to:
REHALKAR, RETAN CHAND, RADHA KISHEN, BACHAN SINGH, MIR ALAM, SHER SINGH, BANTA SINGH, GOVIND RAO, GIYAN SINGH, AHMED, NUR AHMED, KAISAR KAUR, GURMO OTI, and the wife and adopted daughter of NAWAB ALI and the wife of LACHMAN DES SANKIWAR.

Third charge: (Against Accused Nos. 1, 6, 7 only)
Committing a war crime, in that they, at PORT BLAIR between 5th June 1944 and the 22nd August 1944, being in the service of the occupying Power were, in violation of the laws and usages of war, together concerned in the ill-treatment of civilian residents of Port Blair aforesaid, thereby causing physical suffering to the said persons and in particular to:
NIRANJAN LALL, DURGA PERSHAD, EDMOND MEYERS, MRS. MEYERS, BULWANT SINGH, RADHA KISHEN, DABRINDA NATH, ANGAD

Fourth charge: (Against Accused No.5 only)
Committing a war crime in that he, at PORT BLAIR on or about 29th July 1945, being in the service of the occupying power was in violation of the laws and usages of war concerned in the ill-treatment of AFZAL KHAN a civilian resident of PORT BLAIR aforesaid in consequence of which ill-treatment the said AFZAL KHAN died.

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:36

Singapore Cases: No. 235/847
Nakano Case


Accused: Superior Petty Officer NAKANO Chuuji
Imperial Japanese Navy

Place and Date of Trial: Singapore, 6-8 May 46

Finding and Sentence: Accused - Guilty - Death by hanging
There is no printed finding and sentence that exists.

Charge: Committing a war crime, in that he, at or near PORT BLAIR, on or about 1 May
1944 in violation of the laws and usages of war being in the service of the
occupying Power acted towards and was concerned in the beating, torture and
maltreatment of OVRAN a civilian resident of PORT BLAIR in consequence
whereof the said OVRAN died.

Facts relating to the several charges: In May 1944 Ovran was a coolie employed on road construction at Port Blair in the Andaman Islands. One day the accused summoned him from a gang of coolies, asked him why he had not been to work before and accused him of being a spy. The accused then beat and kicked Ovran into unconsciousness, revived him and beat him again. He was left by the roadside until taken home by other coolies where he died the following morning.

Accused handling of the charge: In his defence the accused said that Ovran had refused to work for the Japanese and on his appearing for work two other Japanese petty officers had beat him. The accused then interceded and slapped Ovran to prevent the other Japanese from beating him. After this there was no further contact between him and Ovran. He denied having beaten Ovran with a stick, and argued that the witness statements of the coolies who saw the beating were unreliable.

Main issues of the case raised by prosecution and defence:

1) Contradictory stories
This case was extremely short, and only involved one accused, one victim and one main witness. Hence, the nature of the prosecution and defence were centered only on the events that led up to the death of the victim Ovran.

The defence claimed that Ovran was still coming to work for several months after the beating took place, which showed that he had not suffered any bodily harm and did not die as a result of the beating. The defence argued that his death was due to malaria. The main witness that they called upon was Sheik Ahmed, and based on his statements, three dates as given in the closing address were sufficient evidence to show that the accused was not guilty of the charge. The first date was the date of commencement of the construction work of the road that Ovran was a part of. The second date was the time when the road construction was turned over to the army, approximately 7 months later, and the third date was the time of Ovran's death in May 1944, one month after the second date. The defence argued that the first and third date were absolutely true, the third date backed up absolutely by Sheik Ahmed. The second date, the defence admitted, was vague according to Sheik Ahmed. However, after further questioning Sheik Ahmed's answer completely coincided with when the road construction was taken over by the army. These dates were so significant because they showed that a month before his death Ovran was under the army unit and hence such an incident by the accused could not have taken place. Hence Ovran's death was not caused by the beating that he received from the accused.

The prosecution also relied heavily on the statements made by Sheik Ahmed. They also used his statements to present their case, claiming that the story he told found the "fullest corroboration" in the statements submitted. The prosecution defended that it was impossible for the incident to have happened when alleged by the prosecution witness and that it was not necessary to prove the exact date. They rendered the defence argument as irrelevant.

The sentence passed showed that the prosecution presented a strong case that the court took into account when passing the sentence. If they had acknowledged the defence's argument, they would have taken a more lenient stand towards the accused but they did not. The accused received the death sentence.

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:38

Singapore Cases: No. 235/975
Otsuka Case


Accused:
(1) Maj. Gen. OTSUKA Misao
(2) Major KOBAYASHI Shozo
(3) Major KAMIYA Haruo
(4) Capt. YAJIMA Mitsuo
(5) Lieut. SUGIHARA Kenji
(6) Jud. W.O. OKI Yoshio
(7) Jud. W.O. KUBO Shinkichi
(8) Sgt. Maj. HANAWA Hatsuo
(9) Sgt. Maj. YOSHIYAMA Kinichi
(10) Sgt. Maj. SHINOJIMA Zinso
(11) Sgt. Maj. SATO Takeo
(12) Sgt. MORIMOTO Ichiro
(13) Sgt. NIIBARA Hideo
(14) Sgt. KOBAYASHI Toshio
(15) Sgt. KOGA Tsutomu
(16) Sgt. MURATA Misasuchi
(17) Sgt. HIEDA Isamu
(18) Sgt. MINO Teruo
(19) Sgt. NAMATA Takeshi
(20) Sgt. SATO Akira
(21) Sgt. TSUKUDA Keiji
(22) Sgt. OKAMURA Kazuo
(23) Sgt. YAMANISHI Nobuharu
(24) Sgt. SHIMOI Masao
(25) Sgt. HATTORI Tenji
(26) Sgt. OKUDAHIRA Masamori
(27) Sgt. OTAKE Kiyotaka
(28) Sgt. YAMANE Masatsugu
(29) Sgt. KOYAMA Unsaburo
(30) Sgt. YAMASHITA Atsushi
(31) Cpl. HACHIYA Jutaro
(32) L/Cpl. HIROSE Yoshio
(33) GCP No.1 NAKAMURA Hideo
(34) GCP No.6 KADONO Snoichiro
(35) GCP No.52 GOTO Tatsuji
(36) GCP No.66 CHIKAMURA Toshiharu
(37) GCP No.70 WATANABE Heikichi
(38) GCP No.80 TANAKA Toshiro
(39) GCP No.413 FURUHATA Seigo
(40) GCP No.416 SAITO Kosaku
(41) GCP No.419 NISHIDA Koichi
(42) GCP No.430 SUGANO Kurao
(43) Maj. Gen. HIDAKA Mineo

of the Imperial Japanese Army

Place and Date of Trial: Singapore, 8-9, 12-15, 20-22, 26-28, 30-31 Aug 46; 9-12, 16-
20, 23 Sept, 46; 2-3, 5, 7-10 Oct 1946

Finding and Sentence:
Accused 26, 32, 38 & 39 - Not guilty - Acquitted

Guilty Accused Sentence
1, 2, 4, 35, 43 Death by hanging
3, 5, 6, 7, 23 Imprisonment for Life
17 15 years imprisonment
8, 11, 16, 19 12 years imprisonment
9, 10, 20, 21, 33 10 years imprisonment
15 8 years imprisonment
22, 27, 29, 31, 34, 37 7 years imprisonment
13, 14, 18, 24, 30 5 years imprisonment
12, 40 4 years imprisonment
25, 36, 41, 42 3 years imprisonment
28 1 year imprisonment
Note: Accused 5's sentence was remitted to 10 years imprisonment by G.O.C.
Singapore District.

Charge: Committing a War Crime in that at Singapore between the 16th February 1942
and the 15th August 1945 when responsible for the well being of the persons in
custody in the Military Section of the OUTRAM ROAD Prison, were, in violation of the laws and usages of War, together concerned as parties to the ill-treatment
and neglect of certain of such persons causing the death of about thirteen British Prisoners of War, about four Dutch Prisoners of War and about twenty-two civilians, and physical suffering to many other British, Dutch and American Prisoners of War and civilians there in custody.

Facts relating to the charge: The Abstract of Evidence outlined the facts relating to the case:
1. This prosecution is based upon the brutality and callous negligence of the Accused in their treatment of Prisoners of War and certain Civilians alleged to have been guilty of offences and imprisoned in the Military section of the Prison, Outram Road, Singapore
2. The first accused Maj-General Otsuka was from about 3rd April 1944 until 15th August 1945 the Head of the Judicial Department of the 7th Area Army of the Japanese Army, and as such was in command of the whole of the staff of the said Prison and on many occasions personally inspected it.
3. The second accused Major Shozo Kobayashi was appointed Commandant of the Prison about 1st August 1942. On 1st May 1944, he left and returned about 5th September 1944, and thereafter remained as Commandant until the Japanese surrender and the re-occupation of Singapore. During the absence of the Second Accused the Third Accused, Major Kamiya, took charge of the Prison, and he was at all material times otherwise concerned in the administration as Senior Assistant Staff Officer to the First Accused.
4. The Fourth Accused was from about August and September 1944 and the Fifth Accused was from about September 1944 to June 1945 the Medical Officer of the Military Section of the Prison, and as such as callously negligent in his duty of tending prisoner patients thereby causing needless suffering to prisoners, and in advising upon their conditions of health.
5. The Staff of the Prison was divided into Chief Warders and Warders. The Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Accused were Chief Warders. The Warders were the Twelfth to the Thirty-third (inclusive) Accused. The First, Second and Third Accused also used as Warders. Japanese good conduct prisoners were in particular the Thirty-fourth to Forty-third (inclusive) Accused to assist in the administration of the Prison.
6. The conditions within the prison were as follows:-
a) No private was allowed except in solitary confinement for long periods and all prisoners were continually subjected to brutal treatment by the Accused.
b) The food provided was totally inadequate and resulted in deficiency diseases of every kind.
c) There was no proper medical attention, and medical advice given was ignored.
d) There were no proper washing or sanitary arrangements.
Other evidence relating to conditions in the Gaol is contained in the affidavits.
7. A number of the Prisoners of War, British and Dutch, and Civilians died as a result of their ill-treatment and neglect by the Accused including:-
Captain deVries, L/Bdr. Bradley, Pte. Brown, Pte. Peters, Pte. Marshall, Pte. Pekel, Pte. Knight, Sepoy Mohamed, Sepoy Malya, Pte. Ross, Pte. Allen, Cpl. Fainey, Sup. Davis, Capt. Van Hemert, Gunner Dilling, Lt.Col. Van Dyken, Dr. Shelley, Cpl. Small, Mr. Hughehaser, Mr. Rendler, Mr. Gehnder, Mr. Middlebrook, Mr. Davies, Mr. Barter, Mr. Masaro, Mr. Coroada, Mr. Eoernander, Mr. Logan, Mr. Tan San Leong, Mr. Chan Toh Hay, Mr. Moh Kay, Mr. Koh Hook Swee, Mr. Wory Yet Hak, Mr. Koi Gee Gee, Mr. Tong Tai Yip, Mr. Lim Too Teon, Mr. Lin Ah Liang, Mr. Nah Wee Hung, Mr. Igurahim, Mr. Ponpa
8. All the Accused are charged in the terms of the first charge as being guilty of a War Crime resulting from concerted action upon the part of all of them as being the Commanding Officer and Staff of the Prison respectively.
9. Specific acts of brutality were committed by the Accused following and approved of acquiesced in and/or assisted by all the other Accused in particular:-
a) The Second Accused caused 10 Prisoners of War to be locked up without food and water for 3 days. Ebert states that they did so as they were suspected of conveying information to other prisoners.
b) The Sixth Accused, on many occasions supervised or did not interfere when prisoners were being beaten as stated in the affidavit of Weynton.
c) The Seventh Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as appears in the affidavits of Moon, Minty and Weynton. Ebert states "that the Fifth Accused was one of the administrative staff. I think he was second in charge."
d) The Eighth Accused was concerned by his neglect in the death of Father Morano. This accused further committed acts of brutality as stated in the affidavits of Minty, Green and Weynton.
e) The Eleventh Accused committed acts of assault and brutality as appears in the affidavits of Moran, Cherry, Marriott, Moffat, Minty, Macgregor, Morris, Green, Dean and McGregor.
f) The Twelfth Accused is concerned in:-
i. The death of two Australian soldiers as stated in the Affidavits of Moran and the evidence of Picozzi.
ii. The deaths of POWs being Captain Van Hemert, Lance Bombardier Bradley and Gunner Dilling as appears in the affidavits of Slater and others.
iii. Acts of brutality as stated in the affidavit of Dean.
g) The Thirteenth Accused is concerned in the death of an Indian soldier as appears in the affidavit of Moran and the evidence of Picozzi. This accused also committed assaults and acts of brutality as appears in the affidavits of Major Smith, Minty, Green, Dean and McGregor.
h) The Fourteenth Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as appears in the affidavits of Cherry, Minty, Weynton and McGregor as well as the evidence of Picozzi.
i) The Fifteenth Accused committed acts of ill-treatment and brutality as appears in the affidavits of Macalister, Minty, Morris and Green and a statement of Picozzi.
j) The Sixteenth Accused is charged with assault and acts of brutality on Marriott and Picozzi, as stated in the affidavit of the former.
k) The Seventeenth Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as appears in the affidavits of Weynton, Minty, Green and Dean. He also withheld rations. Picozzi and Ebert also made statements.
l) The Eighteenth Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as appears in the affidavits of Moon, Minty, Pedley, Weynton and McGregor. Picozzi and Ebert also made statements.
m) The Nineteenth Accused was concerned in the death of a Prisoner of War named Brown. Picozzi stated that he constantly beat Brown and administered general ill-treatment. The Accused also committed acts of brutality and short-issued rations as appears in the affidavits of Weynton.
n) The Twentieth Accused was concerned in the death of a Chinese, whom Picozzi states that the accused was responsible for. The accused also committed assaults and acts of brutality as appears in affidavits of Moran, Bradley, Weynton and Green. Ebert also made a statement.
o) The Twenty-first is charged with assaults and acts of brutality as appears in the affidavits of Moran, Pedley, Minty, Green and Dean. Ebert and Picozzi also made a statement.
p) The Twenty-second Accused is charged with acts of brutality as appears in the affidavits of Moon, Minty, Slater, Screwthen and Dean. Picozzi also said that he reduced rations.
q) The Twenty-third Accused is said by Picozzi to have ill-treated prisoners.
r) The Twenty-fourth Accused is concerned in the death of Father Massano. Picozzi said that the accused kicked and beat him. The accused also committed assaults and acts of brutality as appears in the affidavits of Moran, Cherry, Minty, Bradley, Weynton and Dean.
s) The Twenty-fifth Accused is charged with brutality and ill-treatment of prisoners as appears in the affidavits of Macalister, Dean, Green and Weynton. Picozzi and Ebert also gave similar statements.
t) The Twenty-sixth Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality generally as appears in the affidavits of Minty and in particular in respect to a prisoner of war named Lawson who as a result suffered a fracture of two ribs. The accused on several occasions kicked prisoners until they were unconscious. Picozzi and Ebert state that the accused beat prisoners and threw them about.
u) The Twenty-seventh Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as appears in the affidavit of Moon, Minty, Slater and Sharpe.
v) The Twenty-eighth Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as appears in the affidavits of Moran, Moon, Slater and Sharpe.
w) The Twenty-ninth Accused committed assault and acts of brutality as appear in the affidavit of Moran.
x) The Thirtieth Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as appears in the affidavit of Sharpe.
y) The Thirty-first Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as appears in the affidavit of Moon, and the evidence of Picozzi and Ebert.
z) The Thirty-second Accused generally ill-treated prisoners as appears in the affidavits of Weynton, Dean and McGregor. Picozzi stated that he generally ill-treated prisoners.
z1) The Thirty-third Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as
appears in the affidavits of Marriott and Cherry.
z2) The Thirty-fourth Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as
appears in the affidavits of Wells, Weynton, Marriott, Macalister, Slater,
Lomax, Moon, Cherry, Morris, Green, Minty, Smith, and Smits.
z3) The Thirty-fifth Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality in
particular against Smith, as appears from the affidavits of the said Smith and Weynton, and Smits, Bekkering and Trap.
z4) The Thirty-sixth accused is concerned in the following matters:
(i) The death of a prisoner of war being Capt. Van Hemert, as appears in affidavits of MacWilliam, Slater, Macalister, Wortman, Koets, Smits, Siegmund and Knoester.
(ii) The death of Private Bradley as appears in the affidavits of Slater, Macalister and Minty.
(iii) The death of Gunner C. Dilling as appears in the affidavit of Morris.
(iv) Assault and acts of brutality as appears in the affidavits of Cherry, Moon, Weynton, MacWilliam, Macalister, Smits, Bekkering and Koets.
(v) Stealing prisoners' food as appears in the affidavits of MacWilliam, and Koets.
(vi) Refusal of medicine as appears in the affidavits of Private MacWilliam.
z5) The Thirty-seventh Accused committed acts of brutality as appears in the
affidavit of Weynton.
z6) The Thirty-eighth Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as
appears in the affidavits of Moon, Morano, Wells, Weynton, Lomax,
Minty, Smits, Wortman and Siegmund.
z7) The Thirty-ninth Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as
appears in the affidavits of Moran, Weynton, Macalister and Minty.
z8) The Forty-first Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as
appears in the affidavits of Moran, Weynton, Slater, Smith, Minty, Macalister and Smits. Picozzi states that he starved and beat prisoners.
z9) The Forty-second Accused committed assault and acts of brutality as
appears in the affidavit of Weynton. Ebert states that he ill-treated prisoners.
z10) The Forty-third Accused committed assaults and acts of brutality as
appears in the affidavits of Weynton, Macalister, Minty and Smits.

ansata1976
Member
Posts: 4958
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 18:51
Location: At home

Re: Japanese Trials

Post by ansata1976 » 12 Jul 2009 18:39

Singapore Cases: No. 235/1109
Sasa Case


Accused: Major General SASA Akira
of the Imperial Japanese Army

Place and Date of Trial: Singapore, 19, 21-22 and 26 January 1948

Finding and Sentence: Accused - Guilty - Death by hanging

Charge: Committing a War Crime in that he at Chungkai P.O.W. Camp in Siam on or
about the 27th day of March 1943 when engaged in the administration of Ps.O.W. employed in the construction of the Burma-Siam Railway, was, in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the killing of Sgt. KELLY of the R.A.M.C. Sgt. Reay and Fusilier Kencally-Timothy both of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers and Private Fitzgerald of the R.A.O.C., British Prisoners of War.

Facts relating to the charge: At the material time the accused was Chief Administrative Officer and Group Commander of all P.O.W Camps and Ps.O.W employed in the construction of the Siam-Burma Railway.
Four Ps.O.W. named in the charge escaped from a camp. P.W. 1 testified that the four men escaped from Takirin Camp and that they were captured after about one and a half months. He reported the escape of the Ps.O.W to the accused and subsequently reported their capture to him and asked him how the Ps.O.W should be dealt with and the accused instructed him to shoot them. He accordingly had them shot, and then reported to the accused that he had carried out his orders.
Previously to this, Ps.O.W who had escaped and been re-captured were tried by Court Martial but on this occasion the accused gave him instructions to shoot the Ps.O.W without trial, and they therefore had no trial. He further stated that he also reported the shooting to Lt-Col. Williamson who was the senior British Officer on the P.O.W. Camp and that the shooting was done on Superior orders.
Exhibit 'M' being an extract of evidence given by Lt-Col. NAGATOMO Yoshitada at his own trial at a Military Court held at Singapore on 24/7/46 was put in as evidence in support of the prosecution's case. Although this evidence does not concern the before mentioned four Ps.O.W, it does show that it was the usual custom of the accused to order Ps.O.W who had escaped and been re-captured to be shot.
Statements from Ps.O.W were also put in, in support of the prosecution case.

Accused handling of the charge: In his defence the accused gave evidence on oath and admitted that he was Commander of P.O.W. Group Camps in Siam. He denied that he ever gave any orders to shoot re-captured Ps.O.W, but admitted that shooting might be resorted to in preventing them from escaping.
He admitted receiving a report that the four Ps.O.W had escaped and later received a report that they had been shot. He further testified that on receiving this report he was astonished, as he had not given any orders that the four Ps.O.W should be shot. He maintained that P.W. 1 had misunderstood his orders. He did not however make any report to the War Department regarding the matter, nor did he take any disciplinary action against P.W. 1 or anyone else connected with the shooting.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”