以上、我々は、いわゆる〈南京大虐殺〉を一つの「殺人事件」(ならびにそれに付随する略奪・強姦事件を含む)としてとらえ、それを告発した側に挙証責任があるという前提の下に、刑事訴訟手続の手法を借りながら、「犯罪」としての立証がなされ得ているのかを多面的な角度から検証してきたが、以下、その総括的結論を述べる。刑事訴訟でいえば〈最終弁論〉に相当しよう。

So far, we have been cross-examining the so-called 'Nanking Massacre' as a murder case (including the looting and rape associated to it). Under the assumption that the Prosecution is responsible for burden of proof, this book has examined from various aspects through procedures of criminal codes whether the 'Nanking Massacre' was proved as a crime. In the following, we would like to comprehensively state our conclusion, which is comparable to the Summation in the criminal procedure.

ここで告発側が提示した〈起訴状〉(『対日戦争史録』)を改めて簡潔に要約してみよう。

Let us here briefly quote the History of the War against Japan which was refered to in the indictment of the Prosecution.

After the seizure of Nanking, during the six weeks starting from December 13, 1937, the Japanese Army systematically and deliberately has committed the murders of more than 300,000 POWs and civilians, and also has committed large scale instances of looting and rape which were estimated at 80,000 cases, within or in the suburbs of the city of Nanking. Here are the typical examples of insanely committed murders, which were called the 'Murder Race' committed by two Second Lieutenants.

まず、その中心をなす「殺人事件」について考察してみる。「殺人事件」では何よりも「死体」の認定が不可欠であるが、「事件」が起こったとされるのが日中の全面戦争の最中であり、その告発も八年たってからのことであって、直接「死体」を検死して認定したわけではなく、あくまでも目撃者の「証言」と各種の統計資料に基づく「推認」によってなされたものである。

First, let us examine the centrally focused 'case of murder'. In the murder case, the corpses need to be identified. The case is said to be committed during the time of the Sino-Japanese war, and the prosecution is made eight years later. This case is also proved only by the eyewitnesses' reports and the assumption based on the various statistics and materials, and the corpses don't receive autopsies.

最も重大な争点である「死体」の数については、第一に、南京戦前後の南京市の人口の変動に注意する必要がある。告発側は、南京戦以前には南京市内ならびに近郊にいた軍民合わせて五十五万人の人口が翌年五月には十七万人に激減したと主張するが、その根拠は何も示されていないし、紅卍字会などによる埋葬死体の数にも相当数の水増しがあり、埋葬数からも「三十万殺害説」は成り立たない。

The most important point at issue is the sum of the corpses counted before and after the battle of Nanking. The Prosecution claims that there were 550,000 soldiers and civilians together prior to the war within the city of Nanking and in the suburbs, and that the population decreased down to 170,000 by May 1938. But the reason of the decrease has not been explained yet. Also, the sum shown in the burial records of the Red Swastika Society has been padded with considerable empty figures, so that the records can not be trustworthy enough to prove the 'murder of 300,000 people'.

我々は、安全区委員会の安全区の実情に関する認識に従って、南京戦時の人口の総数を民間人二十万人＋将兵とその家族五万人で最大でも二十五万人、翌三月の時点での人口をスマイス報告などに拠って二十七万人と推定し、戦後、南京市の人口は逆に増加したと思料する。また、ラーベら現地にいた欧米人の「証言」も、東京裁判で証言した二人を除いて〈反対尋問〉を受けておらず、ほとんどが伝聞によるもので、「数万人殺害説」すらも立証できていない。南京戦に伴う「死体」の数は埋葬死体数を一万人程度と推定すれば、残るは揚子江に流された敗残兵を主とする未埋葬死体数であるが、その数を正確に算定することは出来ないにしろ、埋葬死体数を桁違いに超えるものではあるまい。

We have estimated the total population of Nanking at the time of Nanking Battle as not more than 250,000, including 200,000 civilians and 50,000 soldiers and their families, according to the information about the Safety Zone recorded by the Safety Zone Committee. Also, we have estimated the population at the time of March 1938, up to 270,000 according to the Smythe's Investigation. In other words, the population of the city of Nanking has increased after the war. The testimonies made by the westerners including J. Rabe who all stayed in Nanking during the period, are mostly based on the rumors and have not been cross-examined except two testimonies presented to the IMTFE. Consequently the so-called 'murder of several tens of thousands' has not ever been verified. As for the sum of the corpses during the battle of Nanking, we estimate 10,000 corpses from the burial records. The remaining issue is the sum of the unburied corpses, who were mainly stragglers thrown to the Yangtze River. Although it is difficult to exactly count the sum, we estimate that it might not incomparably exceed the sum of burials.

次に「死因」も(従って「凶器」の種類も)検死によって認定されたのではなく、主として目撃者の〈証言〉に依拠しているが、それらはすべて〈反対尋問〉を受けていない一方的な陳述で、その内容も合理性を著しく欠き、〈証明力〉はもとより〈証拠能力〉すら具えておらず、到底信用できるものではない。と同時に、日本軍の「組織的・計画的大量殺害」によるという「死因」は「加害者」の「動機」によっても裏付けられなければならない。実は、本件において致命的に欠けているのは「動機」の立証なのである。

Next to this, 'cause of death' and 'type of offensive weapon' have not been identified by means of inquest, but they are mostly based on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. These testimonies are all one-sided statements which have not been cross-examined yet, and the contents of the statement are extremely lacking rationality not only in admissibility, but also in probative value. Therefore it is all but impossible for us to believe them. In addition, 'cause of death' due to the 'systematic and deliberate large scale of murders' committed by by the Japanese Army, have to be confirmed by the 'motive' of 'offenders'. In this case, what is absolutely lacking is the proof of the 'motive'.

告発側は、日本軍が「中国人民を恫喝し中国の抗戦意志をくじく目的」で行ったと主張するが、それを立証する〈人証〉も〈物証〉も皆無であるし、日本軍が作戦遂行に関して発した「注意事項」からは、それとは全く逆の意図が読みとれる。とりわけ、誤解されているのは捕虜の取扱いである。南京戦以前に日本軍は国際法に従って捕虜を処遇する趣旨の命令を発していた事実を想起されたい。また、仮に「中国人民を恫喝する目的」が日本軍にあったならば、北京・済南・徐州・漢口などの戦闘でも同様な「組織的・計画的大量殺害」があったはずである。なぜ南京においてのみこのような事件が起こったのか、その理由を明示する論拠は何一つ提示されていない。

The Prosecution claims that the Japanese Army committed such crimes for the purpose of 'destroying the resisting will of Chinese people by threatening them'. However, there is absolutely no personal evidence nor material evidence. On the contrary, the 'Japanese Army's Rules of Engagement' to the soldiers, which the army published relative to this campaign, has expressed a totally different intension. What has been totally misunderstood is the treatment of POWs. The Japanese Army has already issued the order that all the Japanese Army should treat the POWs according to the international humanitarian law. If the Japanese Army has an intension of 'threatening Chinese people', why have they not done 'systematic and deliberate large scale murder' in the war in Beijing, Jinan, Xuzhou, and Hankou? The reason why such an incident had to happen only in Nanking are not explained, neither there are such evidences shown at all.

さて、通常の「殺人事件」では「被害者」の素性が特定されなければ、「捜査」は進展しないのだが、〈起訴状〉に記載されている「死体」の数や「死因」に重大な疑惑が生じたことで、その検証を優先したために後回しになってしまった「被害者」の素性をここで検証してみることにする。

Let us now examine the identities of the victims. Normally, the process of investigations can not advance unless the identities of the victims are cleared in a murder case. Here, however, we have given priority to the cross-examination as to the number of the corpses and the 'cause of death', since there were crucial doubts about the number and the cause described in the indictment of the Prosecution. Now we come back to the verification of the identities of the victims.

繰り返しになるが、南京戦に伴う「死体」の数を特定することはできないとしても、その大多数が戦闘やそれに準ずる行為(掃蕩や捕虜暴動鎮圧など)によって死亡した中国軍将兵であることは明らかであり、これらはすべて合法的な行為であって最初から問題になるものではない。また、便衣兵として摘発されて処刑された者も同様である(ちなみに、米国の一八六三年の「陸戦訓令」には「これ(便衣兵)を捕らえたる時は、捕虜の特権を享有せしめずして、一括して山賊又は海賊を以てこれに擬すべし」とあって、各国とも極刑をもって処断することが多い)。告発側の根本的な誤謬は、こうした合法的な行為による死者とそうではない死者を全く区別せずに、客観的な論証を経ることなくすべて非合法な「殺人」として扱っている点にある。

Repeatedly speaking, we would like to clarify that the majority of the corpses counted were the war dead of Chinese soldiers due to battles and revolts occurred relative to the Nanking battle. These causes of death were out of the question since the war dead was due to legal actions. Also, it is legal that the Plain-clothes soldiers can not be treated as the POWs when captured. (We can quote the U.S. Army Field Manual of 1863 which specifies that Plain-clothes soldiers can not be given the status of the POWs when captures. They will be collectively treated as pirates or bandits. Most of the nations follow this and treat them with maximum punishment.) The crucial errors the Prosecution has committed are that they did not distinguish the war dead, which were killed legally from those who were killed otherwise.

最後に問題として残るのは次の三つのケースである。第一に投降した後に殺害された兵士である。但し、この中には、本来捕虜としての資格を有しない便衣兵ないし便衣兵の嫌疑がある者を軍法会議あるいは軍律会議を経ることなく処刑したという手続上の瑕疵が非難されているものも含まれている。

Lastly, the following three cases are remained as the problems. First, those soldiers have been killed after the surrender. Among them, Plain-clothes soldiers and persons under suspicion of Plain-clothes soldiers have been executed without proceeding in Court-marshal or provost courts. And, the failures are not only blamed, but also the Prosecution has included the sum of these soldiers in the cases of murder.

あと二つは「無抵抗のまま殺害された市民」と「便衣兵と誤認されて処刑された市民」である。前者は日本軍による不法殺害の犠牲者であることは間違いないが、後者は中国兵が一般市民に偽装したために巻き添えになったことによるものであるから、その違法性は軽減されよう。以上いずれのケースも苛烈な戦場における将兵の異常な心理状態を十分考慮すべきであり、また、被害者の総数も立証されていない。

Two more problems remain. One is the civilians who have been killed in spite of being non-resisting, and another is the civilians who would be killed in error with the suspicion of Plain-clothes soldiers. The former are, no doubt, the victims of unjust murders committed by the Japanese troops. But, for the cases of the latter, the illegality may be waived because they have been mixed up in the Japanese campaign that mopped up the Plain-clothes soldiers. For any cases, the number of victims has not been counted, also the soldiers' unusual mental state in the fierce battlefields fully need to be considered.

もう一つ、注意を喚起しておかなければならないのは「加害者」である。これまで南京戦における中国人殺害の「加害者」はすべて日本軍であるということが自明の前提とされてきたが、実はそうではなく、同胞である中国軍によって殺害されたケースが少なからずあるのである。その多くは自軍兵士の逃走を阻止するために発砲した「督戦隊」によって射殺された者や、敗走中の混乱で自軍兵士の下敷きになって圧死した者であるが、告発側はこの種の死者をも無差別に日本軍による「組織的・計画的大量殺害」の「被害者」に算入しているのであるから、重ね重ねその「死体」数の計算の杜撰さと恣意性を強調せざるを得ない。

Another thing which we would like to call our readers' attention, is how to identify the 'offenders'. The Prosecution declares, without any questions, that the offenders were the Japanese troops alone in the battle of Nanking. However, it is not always true. There have been many murders committed by the Chinese troops. Many of the retreating Chinese soldiers have been shot to death by their 'Supervising unit' who were in charge of preventing Chinese soldiers from escaping from the front lines, or some fleeing Chinese soldiers have been caught to death under other running away soldiers when in a state of confusion occurred along with rout. In spite of these facts, the Prosecution has counted all the war dead as victims of the Japanese Army's 'systematic and deliberate large scale massacre'. Therefore, we would need to repeatedly emphasize their carelessness and arbitrariness in calculating the sum of corpses.

次に「組織的・計画的大量殺害」と平行して行われたとされる「組織的大規模掠奪・強姦」について考察する。まず、掠奪についてであるが、先述した日本軍の「注意事項」を見れば、日本軍は逆に掠奪を厳禁していたことは明白で、かつ違反者には厳罰を課していたから、「組織的」な「犯行」であったとは言えない。どの程度の被害があったかという点については、「大規模」の根拠とされているベイツらの証言には矛盾がある上に、日本軍の行為ではないものも含まれていると見られる安全区委員会の「被害届」でも二百件に満たないとすれば、それを「大規模」と見るか否かは主観の違いに帰すると思われるものの、日本軍に軍紀に違反した略奪行為があったことは遺憾ながら事実である。

Further, we would like to examine the so-called 'systematic large scale looting and rape' said to have been committed along with the 'systematic and deliberate large scale massacre'. As for their claims of looting, the Japanese Army strictly prohibits looting as explained in the 'Japanese Army's Rules of Engagement' which the army published, and the offenders are heavily punished. Therefore, even if such offenses were committed, those acts could have never been the systematically planned ones. We can not tell how extensive the offenses have been, because the Bates' witnesses and others which were being believed as a basis on the large-scale looting were inconsistent, and the 'documents of damage' collected by the Safety Zone Committee indicated less than 200 cases which seemed to contain the cases not relative to the offenses committed by the Japanese troops. However, to our regret, we must admit the fact that there were some looting acts against the military discipline by the Japanese soldiers, although the view as to whether or not the looting less than 200 should be regarded as large-scale cases will be depending on each subjectively.

強姦についても、日本軍は「老幼婦女子に対して寛容の心を持って接」すべきことを命じ、違反者には厳罰をもって臨んでいた。問題となるのはその件数であるが、告発側の主張する二万ないし八万という件数は、一日平均で五百件から二千件の発生ということになり、南京市内に進駐した日本軍の兵力からして到底信用できるものではない。その根拠とされたラーベやベイツの証言はみずから目撃したものではなく、ほとんどが「伝聞」によるものであり、日本軍の行為であることが確かではないものも含まれている安全区委員会の「被害届」でも六週間で計三百六十一件である。

As for their claims of rapes, the Japanese Army has ordered all the soldiers 'to kindly and open-mindedly treat the elderly, women and children', and those who did not obey the orders have been heavily punished. The issue is a sum of cases. The number of the 'cases of rape' they claim is from 20,000 to 80,000 cases. Suppose we took this number, there should have been from 500 to 2,000 cases of rapes occurred daily. This number is absolutely not trustworthy, when thinking about the sum of the Japanese soldiers stationed in Nanking. This number is based on the witness made by Rabe and Bates, and these have not been directly eye-witnessed but only the rumors. The 'documents of damage' prepared at the request of the Safety Zone Committee are only 361 cases for six weeks, including some cases which have not been identified with the offenses committed by the Japanese soldiers.

掠奪と同様、一部の日本軍兵士に軍紀・風紀に悖る強姦行為があったことは残念ながら事実であり、現地軍首脳においてもそのことを認識していたが、それはあくまでも個々の兵士の個人的な「犯行」にとどまる。

It is very regrettable to have to admit that some Japanese soldiers committed the rape in addition to the looting, acting against the military discipline, and the local headquarters have acknowledged those punishable incidents. Those acts of crimes have been the responsibility of each individual soldier.

最後に、南京戦における日本軍の「狂気的殺戮」の典型例とされている「百人斬り競争」は、職分上、単独で第一線の戦闘に加わることのできない二人の下級将校が、「犯行」を立証する〈人証〉も〈物証〉も何ら提出されず、ただ伝聞によって書かれた新聞記事だけで「犯人」と認定された極端な事例である。

Lastly, the so-called 'Murder Race', which is demonstrated as a typical example of 'cruel atrocities' committed by the Japanese Army during the battle of Nanking, is actually pure fiction. In this extreme example, those who have not been able to join combats on the front line, considered from the nature of their duty, have been recognized in the court as offenders on the basis alone of newspaper articles distorted with the rumors, without testimonies and real eyewitness presented.

以上、告発側が〈南京大虐殺〉を立証するために提示した「直接証拠」に対する評価を基にして〈起訴状〉に記載された「犯罪事実」の疑わしさを論証してきたわけであるが、さらに、いくつかの「状況証拠」によって、我々の〈反証〉はより補強されよう。

We have been demonstrating the ambiguity of the 'evidences of crimes' described in the indictments by the Prosecution as the 'direct evidences' in order to prove the 'Nanking Massacre'. Furthermore, our counter-evidences will be reinforced by some more 'circumstantial evidences'.

まず、南京陥落直後に撮影された安全区の秩序回復を示す写真や、「良民証」を求めて殺到している中国人の様子を記録した映画──いずれもその来歴ははっきりしているし、当時南京に派遣されていたのべ百人を超える日本人記者の証言とも符合する──は、ニューヨークのセントラルパークの十倍ほどの面積の南京市内とその周辺で、一日平均六千人の民間人が虐殺され、遺体を石油で焼却したという告発とは絶対に両立し得ない。これに対して、〈南京大虐殺〉を撮影したとされる写真や映像は、撮影日時、場所、撮影者などが特定できるものは皆無であり、中には全く別のことがらを撮影したものであることや、捏造品であることが明らかになったものさえ存在する。

First of all, there are photos, which obviously show restoration of order in the Safety Zone immediately after the seizure of Nanking, and also the documentary films which show the Chinese citizens rushing to get ID cards. These photos and films are made by the trustworthy sources, and coincided with the witness of over 100 Japanese correspondents dispatched to Nanking then. The false claim saying that an average 6,000 citizens of Nanking were slaughtered a day and the remains were burnt by kerosene within and near such a narrow city as Nanking, the area of which is about ten times as large as Central Park in New York, is absolutely incompatible with what these photos and films show. On the contrary, some of the pictures, which were claimed to have been taken at the time of the massacre, have never indicated the date, the places, and the names of photographers. Also, some of them are showing the entirely different things, and others are forged ones.

何よりも、注目すべきは当時の中国政府や軍、ならびに中国に同情的な国々の対応である。何応欽の「軍事報告」、蒋介石の「声明」、国際連盟の「決議」などを見ても、日本の国際条約違反や広東空襲などに対する非難はあっても、不思議なことに〈南京大虐殺〉に対する言及は全くないのである。告発側は、この点について合理的な説明をすべきであろう。

We must focus our attentions to the attitudes of the KMT, the Chinese Army and the nations sympathizing with the KMT. As far as Ho Ying-chin's 'Military Report', Chang Kai-Shek's 'Statement' and League of Nations' 'Resolution' are concerned, any one say nothing about 'Nanking Massacre' other than the violations made by the Japanese Army against the International Treaty and Air-raid to Canton. For this, the Prosecution should give the world a rationale explanation.

最後に、中国軍の戦術の特異性について触れておく。中国軍には「督戦隊」という特殊部隊が存在し、自国民の生命・財産をも犠牲にする「清野作戦」をしばしば用い、国際法違反の「便衣隊」を組織的に活用することは比較的知られており、いずれも南京戦で登場した。

Last, we would like to refer to the peculiarity of the tactics of the Chinese Army. Within the Chinese Army, there has been a special organization called the 'Supervising unit'. Furthermore, the Chinese Army frequently carries out the so-called 'Scorched-earth policy' and has sacrificed the properties and even the lives of their own people. Although the use of the 'Plain-clothes soldiers' has been prohibited by the international humanitarian law, it is relatively well known that the Chinese Army had systematically utilized them. Both of them, the 'Supervising unit' and the 'Plain-clothes soldiers', have appeared during the Nanking battle.

さらに中国の法制・歴史の権威である瀧川政次郎博士が夙に指摘してきた「屠城」という中国独特の戦争文化にも注視すべきであろう。「屠城」とは、「降伏の勧告を退けて最後まで抗戦し、城が陥ちた場合には、城中の将卒はもちろんのこと、非戦闘員である城中の老若男女に至るまで皆殺しにされる」という考えである。告発側の「証人」たちが、実際に目撃したとはとても思われない〈大虐殺〉をあたかも実見したことのように証言するのは、こうした中国独特の文化に根ざした歴史観を刷りこまれていたからだとも言えるのではなかろうか。

Furthermore, we would like to focus our attentions to the peculiar war culture of China, the so-called 'Slaughtering the castle', which TAKIGAWA Masajiro, authority of China's Law and History, pointed out earlier. What 'Slaughtering the castle' means is that 'at the time when the castle falls after having resisted following the enemy's advice for surrender, not only the warriors but also every citizen, young and old, will be exterminated. 'While the Prosecution's Chinese witnesses have never eye-witnessed the massacre, the reason why they have used to testify the massacre as if they have actually eye-witnessed it, is due to the social background that they had been impressed on their mind with the historical view originated in such peculiar war culture of China.

中国人が日本人に残虐行為を敢えて仮託したがる──そのことを説明する言葉を西欧の心理学は持っている。「レミネッセンス」であり、「投影」である。一千年にもわたって祖先のやってきたことは、「無意識的記憶」すなわち「レミネッセンス」となって生き続け、相手にそれを「投影」するのである。マクベスを駆り立ててライバルを殺させる魔女のように。

The western psychology has a word explaining this type of hypothesis which the Prosecution would imagine such acts of brutality on the Japanese Army. It is called 'Reminiscence' and also 'Projection'. What their ancestors had been doing for thousands of years remains alive as the 'unconscious memory' that is, 'reminiscence' and project it on some other person. It is something like the witch urging Macbeth to kill his rival.

対する日本軍は、日中戦争が形式的には国際法上の戦争ではなかったにもかかわらず、先述したように戦時国際法を努めて尊重しようとした。そればかりではない。国際法では「防守都市」(敵の地上部隊の占領に抵抗し、防衛している都市。当時の南京はこれに該当する)に対しては、無差別攻撃が許されていたにもかかわらず、日本軍は自軍の犠牲が増える危険を冒しても、安全区や中山陵などの史跡への攻撃を避けた。本件の真相を考察するに当たっては、この日中両軍の対照的とも思われる戦法の相違にも目を向けるべきである。

How about the Japanese Army? The China Incident is not a declared war. Therefore, it is not a war under the international humanitarian law. However, as mentioned before, the Japanese Army has tried to respect the international humanitarian law. Not only so, the Japanese Army has avoided attacks on the Safety Zone and the historical sites such as Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum, risking the increase of casualties, even though such indiscriminate attacks to a 'Defense city' were permitted. ('Defense city' is defined as a garrison city where the garrison is defending the city resisting attacks that the enemy's ground troops intend occupation. Nanking has been corresponding to this, then.) We need to focus our attentions on the difference of the tactics between the Chinese Army and the Japanese.

個々まで縷述してくれば、我々の結論は自ずから明らかであろう。すなわち、本章の冒頭に掲げた〈起訴状〉が記載する「犯罪事実」は、告発側が提示した〈証拠〉では立証できなかったということである。とりわけ、「殺人事件」において最も重要なポイントである「加害者」の動機、ならびに「加害」の客体である「死体」の正体と数と「死因」の認定において致命的であると言わねばならない。もとより、一部の日本軍将兵による不法殺害、掠奪、強姦などの遺憾な行為があったことは事実であるが、それはあくまでも苛烈な戦闘に付随して発生した局部的・偶発的な「犯行」であって、三十万人にも及ぶ「組織的・計画的大量殺害」や、二万ないし八万件にも達するという「組織的大規模強姦」とは全く縁遠いものである。

Thus, we have tried to explain at great length and you may have understood the clarity of our explanations. In other words, the 'criminal evidence' which has been given in the 'indictment' as appeared in the beginning of this chapter, has not been proved with the evidences brought by the Prosecution. Especially, the 'motive' of the offenders which are the most important key point of a 'murder case', has not been proved yet. Likewise, the sum of these 'corpses' and the 'cause of death' have not been proved, we must say that these are detrimental to the case. Of course, there have been some regrettable facts of criminal acts of murders, looting and rapes which have been committed by the Japanese Army. However, these sporadic criminal acts committed during the fierce battles, are far from the so-called 'systematic and deliberate large scale massacre' of 300,000, and from the so-called 'systematic large scale rapes' of 20,000 through 80,000 which they claimed.

たしかに、本件は東京裁判や南京軍事裁判で審理された事件であるとはいえ、今日では専ら歴史学の領域に属することがらであり、このように刑事訴訟手続になぞらえて考察することには異論が出るかもしれない。しかし、今や国際社会に定着しつつある〈南京大虐殺〉がいかに杜撰な論拠に基づいているか、ほとんど知られていない現状に鑑み、アカデミックな方法ではなく、ミステリー小説や法廷推理ドラマなどでも馴染み深いこの種の手法を敢えて採った次第である。

Of course, this case has already been processed at the IMTFE and at the Nanking District Court, and verification of this case nowadays exclusively belongs to the field of history. Also, the way we verify the case is per the procedures of criminal code which some may raise an objection to this. The reason why we have dared to adopt this approach, which is commonly used for mystery dramas or detective stories rather than the academic approach, is that we needed to point out how sloppily the story of 'Nanking Massacre' without proof is becoming established in the world.

最後に、正義と真実を愛するすべての世界の人々、とりわけ司法権の独立・法の適正な手続・証拠裁判主義など、民主主義的司法制度が整備されて久しい国に住み、公正と人道をこよなく尊び、それを守るべく努力を傾けてきた親愛なる米国国民に申し上げたい。「『反対尋問』を受けていない、あるいは伝聞に基づいた、もしくは合理性を著しく欠いた内容の証言、明確な根拠なき統計や数字、出所不明の写真や映像──このような『証拠』によって『有罪判決』を下すことが許されると考えますか」と。

Lastly, we would like to appeal to all who love justice and truth, especially, American citizens who live in a democratic society which has the juridical power independence, for the just application of the law and the trials on an evidential basis, and that those who respect the fairness and the humanity and have devoted all their endeavor to fight for both. "Would you allow to sentence the 'guilty verdict' through evidences without receiving 'cross-examinations'?" Or, "Would you allow to sentence the 'guilty verdict' through evidences based on rumors, testimonies with the contents remarkably lacking rationality, statistic data and figures without having clear bases, or pictures or films unknown of their sources?"

心ある米国国民諸兄、一人の〈陪審員〉になったと仮定して、本件を公正中立な立場で再審理して頂きたく、衷心より要望する。

Thoughtful American, we would greatly appreciate your examination of this case from a fair and neutral standpoint, assuming that you are a juror.