【検証けんしょう】ストーカー殺人さつじん事件じけん 神奈川かながわ県警けんけいの対応たいおうを詳くわしく

The case in which Ms. Ayasahi Okazaki 20 from Kawasaki City was murdered despite having consulted the police about being stalked by her ex-boyfriend, defendant Hideyuki Shirai 28.

The Kanagawa Prefectural Police Headquarters admitted on the 4th that there were organizational mistakes in their response, and released a report stating that the system for dealing with stalking cases and similar incidents had become a mere formality.

Mr. Okazaki called the local police station a total of nine times between December 9th of last year, when the whereabouts became unknown, and the 20th.

All of the police officers in charge underestimated the danger and urgency.

Furthermore, it is stated that even after Mr. Okazaki went missing, opportunities to investigate with the possibility of a crime in mind continued to be missed.

I will carefully analyze the verification report.

In January of this year, the victims father reportedly told a Metropolitan Police Department officer, I consulted with the local police station as well, but they only accepted a missing persons report and I feel like theyre not really taking it seriously.

In response to this, the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department provided information to both the Personal Safety Measures Division, which handles cases such as stalking at the Kanagawa Prefectural Police Headquarters, and the First Investigation Division, which handles cases such as murder and kidnapping.

After the Human Safety Measures Division checked the situation with the Community Safety Division at the police station, they reported the details to the executives. However, there were no particular instructions from the executives, and no guidance was given to the police station.

Also, the First Investigation Division checked with the Criminal Affairs Division at the police station regarding the situation, but since they were told that the Community Safety Division is taking the lead in handling the matter, they did not provide any particular guidance or report the situation to their superiors.

On the other hand, the Public Relations and Citizens Affairs Division, which serves as the prefectural police headquarters consultation desk, also received two consultations from relatives in January this year, saying things like the police station isnt taking action.

This consultation should originally have been reported to the prefectural police chief or the prefectural public safety commission as a complaint to the police, but it was instead handled as a request or opinion and was not reported appropriately.

Furthermore, this series of complaints from the relatives had also been reported to the chief of the police station, but it is said that neither active fact-finding was conducted nor was the supervision sufficient.

[2] The report also points out that after the victim went missing, the Kawasaki Rinko Police Station did not review their assessment of the case, even though they had information suggesting the possibility that the victim had been involved in a crime.

Right after the disappearance, the victims relatives reported that the defendant had been seen loitering around their home and that messages such as I wont forgive you had been sent by the defendant.

We were also aware that the victims smartphone remained powered off.

Furthermore, in mid-January of this year, there was also information provided by the defendants relative suggesting that there is suspicion the victim was killed, but no investigation was conducted under the assumption that the victims life was in danger.

In addition, although it was known that the victim was also absent from the class reunion after the coming-of-age ceremony, which they had planned to attend, the head of the police station did not instruct anyone to take action.

On December 22nd of last year, two days after the victim went missing due to the failure to thoroughly implement the three fundamentals of investigation, a window at the grandmothers house where the victim had been staying was found broken and a 110 emergency call was made. However, the report indicates that the response at that time was also inadequate.

Upon receiving the report, police officers from the Kawasaki Rinko Police Station rushed to the scene and investigated the situation. However, according to the report, they failed to carry out basic forensic activities such as photographing the scene and collecting fingerprints, which should have been done as a matter of course. The officers who arrived at the scene hastily judged that the case was unlikely to be a criminal matter, saying things like there is a possibility that the window was broken from the inside to the outside and there is a possibility that the victim disappeared on their own, thereby neglecting the fundamentals of investigation.

Also, the supervisor who received this report endorsed the officers decision and did not convey the details to senior officials at the police station, such as the chief or the head of the criminal affairs division.

At that time, the failure to thoroughly follow the basic principle of investigation, which is to preserve evidence at the crime scene, has been pointed out as one of the reasons for the subsequent delay in the investigation.

The victim went missing after making 49 calls for help that went unanswered on December 20th last year. Between December 9th and the 20th, the victim had called the local Kawasaki Rinko Police Station a total of nine times.

At least three of these were reportedly related to stalking or similar behavior by the defendant.

However, despite repeated phone consultations, all of the police officers in charge underestimated the danger and urgency, and were unable to even recognize the case as a personal safety-related incident such as stalking. As a result, none of the incidents were recorded and no report was made to headquarters.

The report points out that if this phone consultation had been recognized as a stalking case and the appropriate response had been taken, it might have been possible to implement measures to ensure the victims safety.

In this verification, it is also pointed out that the response at that time was inappropriate.

In September last year, the victim’s father reported to the police that “my daughter was assaulted by her ex-boyfriend.” When the police spoke with the victim, she explained that she had been “kicked, punched, and threatened with a knife,” so the police accepted her report.

However, the following month, the victim themselves withdrew the report, stating that they had given an explanation that was not true.

The report states that there was a possibility that the intention to withdraw the damage report could change, and considering that troubles continued afterward, they should have responded more carefully, such as by asking in detail about the circumstances of the withdrawal after some time had passed.