This trial started November 24, 2003 and is
ongoing.
March 4, 2004
by
Hilary
Day two of
Jimmy Miyoshi.
Date on the video says 8-14-03.
There is
discussion regarding the taped testimony prior to jury coming in.
Apparently there is an issue of noise on the taped
testimony that makes it difficult to hear, and a part needing to
be cut out because the audio track picks up Jimmy Miyoshi (JM)
conferring with his attorney.
The sound and written transcript has to be removed, so the
jury cannot hear it, but the tape has to be played straight
through, including this soundless part, because it is something
the jury would see taking place if JM was actually in the
courtroom, giving testimony in front of them.
Brooke, a person interested in participating with Trial
Diary, has joined me today.
Marc asks if I'm training someone, and I say yes.
I'm having trouble hearing today because my head feels like
it's under water.
I must be coming down with something.
There
is some intense discussion over whether Detective Gomes can sit
through testimony today as a spectator, because he has an
associate who would like to view the trial.
After some objecting and discussion, it is finally decided
that whereas Gomes has been and may again be a witness in this
case, and his associate is simply a member of the public, this
associate/friend can sit in the courtroom alone. During discussion
I notice a younger man whom I saw for the first time yesterday
speaking with Detective Thompson.
I think Trial Diary forgot to mention this earlier, but
Thompson, though he was a witness, has been sitting in on
proceedings since the beginning if the trial, helping/advising the
prosecution in whatever capacity,
Earlier in the trial, before he testified, I assumed he was
part of the prosecution team.
Judge Mertel introduces a new clerk, who’s name, if I
heard correctly, is Virginia.
She sits next to Bob, wearing a bright, neon-stripped
shirt. Bob is leaving
for vacation soon, and she will fill in for him while he’s gone.
The tape
today begins with cross-examination by Jeff Robinson.
JM says at
some point he discussed with Sebastian that if the Corporal and
Sergeant were undercover cops, their "cover story" would
be that they didn’t say anything that wasn't already in the
newspaper.
Robinson is questioning Jimmy in order to get him to say
that he had never used this reasoning before, or mentioned this
“plan” of his and Burns’, until he was shown a newspaper
article the day prior to his testimony, that gave the idea.
JM says "I don't remember" about once ever 5
seconds.
JM is not an easy witness: for every 5 questions he’s
asked, he maybe actually answers one with a definitive yes or no.
Probably fewer questions than that, actually.
He says "I don't know if I remember" constantly.
THAT answer really cracks me up: how can you not KNOW if
you don’t remember?
Wouldn’t it be more apt to just say you don’t
remember???
Mostly, he dances around questions and speaks haltingly.
He still sticks to his guns, so to speak, that it was SB's
"plan" to claim they only said things from the newspaper
if it turned out their “gangster” friends, the Sergeant and
Corporal, were actually under cover. He admits that SB told him
that they would say these things from the paper specifically to
"curry favor" from the “gangsters.”
Jeff starts asking JM if about certain parts of his
testimony from the day before, and he claims he can't even recall
questions that Konat asked yesterday (when I say yesterday, I mean
8/13/03, since “today” is 8/14/03).
When Jeff reads an actual quote from his testimony, JM
remains non-cooperative, claiming he can’t confirm whether that
was what was said, because he can’t say for sure if the
transcript is accurate.
Fair enough, but he can think of no reasons he would have
to believe the transcript isn’t accurate.
Questioning
turns to other interviews JM had with the RCMP, including one in
August of 1995.
JM confirms that RCMP wanted "all the
information," including anything confirming that Sebastian
and Atif committed the murders.
The only
observers are me, Brooke, and one reporter.
JM continues to be fairly successful at completely avoiding
giving answers to questions, even when it's totally obvious that
Jeff has pinned him down.
In order to stall and/or avoid questions, he asks for
questions to be repeated, and answers with "it's
possible" or "not necessarily," when it is yes or
no answers that are needed.
The
September 26, 1995 interview with the Regional Crown Counsel
(Canadian Prosecution) is where JM was hoping to get immunity (ok,
whoops- or was this interview with the RCMP- not positive I caught
it accurately), though he doesn't really acknowledge that as the
reason. When
Jeff pulls out a transcript of this interview, it shows that a)
his statement is involuntary and b) it was FOR IMMUNITY.
He did not stand up and give any other reasons for the
interview at the time of the interview.
Jeff wishes to demonstrate to the jury that Miyoshi was in
fact motivated by the immunity agreement to talk with the Regional
Crown Counsel, and that meant telling them information they wanted
to hear in order to absolve himself of any responsibility or
consequences he may otherwise have faced.
Miyoshi
signed an immunity agreement on 10-13-95. He
made a statement to Prosecutor Jeff Baird on 3-11 96. Nowhere
in prior interviews/statements did he say anything about a
"plan" to only say things from newspapers as a cover. JM
says he didn't make statements about their "plan" in
previous statements because he had mixed feelings about the course
of action he was taking, so may not have revealed/omitted info to
RCMP. At
the time he of the previous interviews, he claims he still had
“strong instincts to protect Sebastian and Atif," so did
not "reveal all the information" even though he was
under oath.
By
reviewing the transcripts of an interview with the RCMP from
7/3195, and through questioning, JM reveals that the "only
reason (Atif, Sebastian, and Jimmy) talked as if Sebastian
committed the murders (while at the Landis Hotel) was because
(they) knew the Sergeant was around the corner, listening."
A
transcript of a 3-11-96 interview with Jeff Baird, page 73 reads:
“Did Sebastian tell you why he told the Sergeant about these
murders?”
Miyoshi’s answer: Sebastian was worried about the
situation, about the "hold" the "gangsters"
had on them, a hold they didn't understand or know the reasons
for. JM
dickers over whether the transcript is accurate- he won't confirm
he said things that have been recorded in writing, from the
transcripts.
His explanation for questioning their accuracy is that
sometimes transcripts just don't "look right." JM claims
to have lost his place in the transcript. He
seems to be stalling, avoiding the questions.
This seems silly, since he will inevitably have to answer
no matter how long he stalls.
According to his interview with Jeff Baird, JM said
Sebastian was worried/stressed out about telling the Sergeant
things, and even about just being involved with him at all. Jeff
asks if Sebastian and Atif ever gave ANY other reasons for telling
the Sergeant about the murders (other than worry/stress, and to
“curry favor,” as stated previously): JM says it was because
they were all scared of the Sergeant.
On 9-26-95,
one-and-a-half months after JM's arrest, a Sergeant Rinn asks JM
if there's ANYTHING else they should know about his experience
with Sebastian, Atif, the “gangsters,” the murders, etc. JM
answers by saying if he "laid down" and thought about
it, he could probably think of more details.
He did NOT mention the newspaper “plan” in that
interview, nor did he contact anyone about the newspaper plan for
the 8 years tbat followed.
In 2000,
Jimmy Miyoshi moved from Ontario to Japan.
He hadn't heard from anyone about this case at all
for 6 years, until 2 years after moving to Japan. Despite this, JM
says this case had "been with me the whole time." It
"touched his job" when he was contacted about
testifying.
His boss was contacted, through letters dated 7-17-03. Attached
in this first letter (to his employer) was a letter to JM from
Canadian Prosecutor, the Regional Crown Counsel.
This letter to from the RCC says he will NOT be prosecuted,
but does have an obligation to fulfill, from his Immunity
contract.
Court takes
a morning break.
I spend the
break trying to make the echo in my head subside.
And no, I’m not hung over.
I am legitimately ill.
But that doesn’t change the fact that there is testimony
in need of my observation…
Back to the
letters to Miyoshi in Japan….
&
7-31-03 A second letter, dated 7-24-03, was also to Ted Price (ok,
I missed who this was.
I believe it’s an upper-management person, if not
Miyoshi’s boss, in Japan), from KC prosecutor's office, signed
by James Konat and Roger Davidheiser.
It indicates that JM's response and "commitment"
is required by, I believe, August of 2003.
Miyoshi discussed the matter with one of the top five
people in the (huge) company he worked for, which didn't want to
be associated in any way with this case.
It was
intimated to Miyoshi that he would be fired if he didn't go
testify. His
boss essentially told him he needed to go to the US to tend to the
matter. Miyoshi’s
company was informed it would be contacted after his obligation
was fulfilled.
Miyoshi emailed KC prosecutors on 7-30-03, a few days after
his meeting with the head(s) of the company.
JM created a list of conditions to protect the lives and
careers of he and his wife, which he sent via email to King County
prosecutors.
His conditions, for example, were: KC will send letter
absolving him of the responsibility to his company by 8-03, KC
will compensate JM and his wife if they feel their lives or
jobs have been affected, including financial support, benefits,
re-location costs paid, and new identifies furnished, if needed.
(Note: I heard that Miyoshi was fired upon his return to
Japan, so I’m curious to know what responsibility King County
has to Miyoshi and his wife at this point….especially since
Miyoshi’s conditions stated that they would need to be
compensated until he and his wife felt that the situation
had been rectified.
So if he felt his being fired drastically altered
his career path, would he be due support from King County until he
feels he’s gotten himself back on track career-wise?
And wouldn’t this be awfully speculative?)
Detective
Thompson replied to his email on 7-31-03, requesting written
confirmation (via fax) that he would fulfill his obligation (to
testify).
He agrees. He also waived his right to immunity (I don’t
understand this.
Maybe it was a “good faith” gesture?
I really have no idea why he did this).
Jeff says:
“The RCMP told you, you could go to jail if you don't
say/testify that SB & AR told you about the murders,’ to
which JM replies one of his few definitive “yes’s”. JR is
demonstrating that RCMP told JM of all the “bad things” that
could happen to him if he didn’t choose to implicate Sebastian
and Atif: they could re-open the conspiracy-to-commit-murder case,
a fraud case.
They made it clear that he and his family would be
affected.
The contrast Jeff draws is that Atif and Sebastian
"can't offer him anything."
To counter this assertion, JM says he really didn't want to
testify against Atif and Sebastian because it would "hurt his
friends."
Jeff tries
to show that JM is "making it up as he goes," because
the incriminating testimony he gave yesterday was ALL being said
for the first time: including his statement that Basma was still
alive and that they knew that, that they planned to sneak out of
the Lion King, etc. NONE of these statements had been said by JM
in ANY official interview prior to his testimony the day before.
Jeff shows
that either JM intentionally omitted info (such as the
alibi-building story) when speaking to the RCMP after he was
already in the immunity agreement, or he's now making up details
and saying things for the first time.
So he either lied then, or he's lying now.
According to transcripts with the RCMP and Miyoshi, he
admits he read "a million times" in the paper that the
movie was their alibi.
Therefore, Jeff tries to show it’s not surprising that he
came up with that later, in testimony.
There’s a
problem with the piece of the Miyoshi testimony the attorneys
needed to edit out, and as they try to fix it, we go into the
lunch hour.
I can’t stay, as I have a day job to get to… |
