Tatsuo,civilian guard, Fukuoka, Japan
Date: 31/ May 2-3, 1946, Yokohama, Japan
1. Committed cruel and brutal acts against POWs
1 year confinement at hard labor
Authority Recommendations: 1. Recommender concurred with the
commission's finding of guilty of the accused for the entire
charge of Specification 3 - did not believe that the accused
only slapped the prisoner.
Authority: Paul E. Spurlock, Reviewer, Judge Advocate Section
Arguments: 1. Accused looked out for the welfare of the prisoners
over and beyond what was called for. 2. Did not receive instructions
about the treatment of prisoners of war as set forth by the
Geneva Convention, nor did he know about Japan's agreement until
after cessation of hostilities. 3. Did not carry out the punishment
of prisoners forced to stripped in order to confess who had
traded accused's watch for food.
Recommendations: Defense objection to official communication
between Japan and the U.S. was properly overruled because "it
was admitted into evidence to be considered insofar as the commission
could determine its effect in relation to the laws of war."
What does this mean? I'm not sure how it is supposed to apply.
in Court in Manila.
Photo: U.S. Army, courtesy of Bob Harmon
trial records of Japanese War Criminals Tried at Yokohama,
Japan, between 1946 and 1949 is broken
into 2 sets:
reels - Records of Trials and Clemency Petitions for Accused
Japanese War Criminals Tried at Yokohama, Japan (1946-1948)
reels - Reviews of the Yokohama Class B and C war crimes
Trials by the 8th Army judge Advocate (1946-1949)
following is a summary of the corresponding case found in
the latter group (5-reel set of Judge Advocate's Reviews).
Analysis Prepared by Stella Lee Researcher,
War Crimes Studies Center