Talk:Murder of Junko Furuta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question about Furuta's grave vandelized[edit]

In the "Prosecution" section it says: "Ogura's mother allegedly vandalized Furuta's grave, stating the dead girl had ruined her son's life [23][24]" I hear this claim often, and definitely should be mentioned, if true. However as of now, I don't think it is referenced properly. Neither of the two references provided (23 and 24) mention anything about the vandalisation, as far as I can tell. Reference is 23 in Japanese though, so if someone native in Japanese points out that I'm wrong, I'd appreciate that. I also tried to google a reliable source about vandalisation, but all I can find are the same rumors being repeated at sites like Reddit without any references provided, sometimes mentioned along with other claims that her grave has been to moved to Texas (sounds very odd...Texas? What sense would that make?) I want to point out again, if this claim is true, it should be mentioned, but the proper references should be added. There is a lot of misinformation about this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.178.129.234 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas claim is wrong, her grave is private. It was moved but it’s highly unlikely it was out of Japan.
For the vandalism, reference 23 mentions it as ちなみに、息子の人生を狂わされたと逆切れし、被害者の女子高生のお墓を小倉譲の母親が壊したそうです。
It has comments from Twitter on there so I think I’ll look for an more accurate Japanese source later. We could hide that section for now, since no official source has said it as far as I know.
I think the prosecution section should be updated more from the court files to show the details of the sentences better. It caused a lot of questioning with juvenile law back then. There’s unfortunately a lot of wrong things about the case in English articles, like him being a classmate or the 44 days or the victim’s age. Sachiko124 (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whose semen and pubic hair?[edit]

"When some of the convictions were overturned on the basis of problematic physical evidence (the semen and pubic hair recovered from the body did not match those of the boys who were arrested), the lawyer handling the civil suit decided there was no case to be made and refused to represent them further. (There is speculation that the evidence may have been contaminated — for example, by unidentified persons who raped Furuta.)"

Isn't there any information to be claimed, verifying or at least speculating in where the semen and pubic hair might have come from? - Mickey Macaroni 07:51, 14 May 2007 (CET)

Some notes from my cleanup[edit]

I recently performed a cleanup here, and wanted to leave some notes for future editors.

  • This article has been plagued by misinformation from what I suspect are citogenetic sources in English, as well as some more misinformation from blog-like Japanese-language sources. The highly-detailed description (in Japanese) released as part of the Tokyo High Court's 1991 decision on the defendant's appeal (source) is the best source we currently have in the article, and I would be very wary of adding information not included there.
  • Furuta was held captive for a period of 40 days, which can be surmised from basic math, and is stated in the THC ruling. 44 days is clearly incorrect.
  • "Approximately 100 people knew about Furuta's captivity, but either neglected to report it or themselves were involved in the torture and murder." – I cannot find direct support for this in the ruling.
  • "Shinji" or "Nobuharu" Minato – this is a difficult one, since their names are sealed as juveniles in the THC ruling. The confusion here seems to stem from the reading of the kanji, which can be read as either "Shinji" or "Nobuharu" (jisho). Some non-RS say he "changed his name" to Shinji from Nobuharu, but this doesn't really make sense in light of this, and I suspect it is a misunderstanding based on the dual reading.
  • Various claims of torture – I was able to verify many of the claims from the ruling, but some of the more outrageous ones were not present. I think it is more likely that these stem from embellishments of the facts, rather than the legal documents omitting information because it was too obscene, or something alone those lines. In the extended content below, I have stricken the claims that were not present in the document, and added notes.
Extended content
  • According to their trial statements, the four of them raped her over 400 times, beat her, hung her from the ceiling, used her as a "punching bag" (I can't find a phrase that would translate as punching bag), dropped barbells onto her stomach (court documents say it was an iron exercise ball, used for kickboxing practice), forced her to eat live cockroaches, drink her own urine, forced her to masturbate in front of them, and forced her to dance and sing to songs while being beaten. They inserted many objects into her vagina, rectum and anus, including a lit light bulb and fireworks (only a metal rod and a bottle are mentioned). They burned her vagina and clitoris with cigarettes and lighters (only a lit match was mentioned), and her eyelids with hot wax. They also tore off her left nipple with pliers and pierced her breasts with sewing needles. Furuta was said to slip into unconsciousness because of the repeated assaults, leading them to dunk her head into a bucket of water each time to continue the torture. (it never says that she was beaten unconscious, but that she entered a state of "extreme weakness" by late December). When her body was found, Oronamin C bottles had been inserted into her anus, her face was unrecognizable, and she had become pregnant from the repeated rapes.
  • Furuta is reported to have asked her captors on multiple occasions to "kill her and get it over with," but they refused. (it says this, but I felt that it was not necessary to say) Instead, they forced her to sleep outside on the balcony during winter time (doesn't say she slept on the balcony, but that she was placed there at night) and locked her in a freezer. One of the kidnappers told the court that her hands and legs were so badly damaged that it took her over an hour to walk downstairs to the toilet (the source says she crawled, and that it took "tens of minutes"). Due to the severity of the torture, she eventually lost bladder and bowel control and was subsequently beaten for urinating on the floor (it is unclear if this was because she could not travel to the toilet, or if she became incontinent). She was also unable to drink water or consume food and would vomit after each attempt, for which she received further beatings.
  • There are some new claims that I added from the court documents: she was force to smoke multiple cigarettes at once, inhale paint thinner, and drink large amounts of ('chug') alcohol, milk, and water. See the notes above for more additions/corrections.
  • I have commented out a lengthy paragraph discussing a story about "two police officers who were dispatched to the Minato house 16 days after her abduction, but declined to search the house". I can't find anything about this in the court documents.
  • "Furuta attempted to call the police. However, Miyano caught her before she could say anything. When the police phoned back, Miyano informed them that the original emergency call was a mistake, and told them not to worry. As punishment for trying to contact the authorities..." – the court documents state the pretense for this punishment was Furuta's "plans to escape and contact the police", not that she actually tried, or what she did.

— Goszei (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen your edits and I’d like to thank you for them. I put a lot of sources for the 40 days because people kept changing it to incorrect information so I thank you for finally clearing that up. I was wondering if you could help clarify some other misinformation that people keep constantly changing.
1. The victim’s birthday. I doubt the court cases say it due to privacy, but in all the news sources I read from the time say she was 17 and list her birthday as January 18, 1971. For some reason, a user keeps changing it to November 22, 1972. I’ve never been able to find the documents to read them until now, but the user is being very persistent with it even though it’s wrong.
2. The stuff about Miyano asking her out. There is absolutely no confirmation on this and it looks like there was no actual motive to the case. SachikoKudou (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you suspect, the High Court ruling does not give an exact date, but it does say she was 17 years old when she died. There is no evidence in the ruling about Miyano asking her out, and based on the other sexual crimes he committed on random women it seems there was no personal motive. — Goszei (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits.
A small change I would suggest is that the wording of the THC reads "over a period exceeding 40 days".
The time has not been established exactly but the court determined it to be a minimum of 40 days. 92.237.111.89 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This case has truly been the most misinformed with English articles. The thing about the mahjong game is incorrect too, as we’ve both had to fix. I think this one is just a misunderstanding that escalated into people thinking it’s real. I’ve also had to fix some claims last year about a user persistently changing the case name to “44 Days of Hell” which is obviously incorrect. And people are still saying this long after I changed it on here. I’ve even saw people harass her school on reviews about the 44 days thing, which is very rude and more than likely, they have no idea what the reviews are talking about. The Japanese Wikipedia confirms everything you spoke of and adds onto the trial so I may fix that as well. Sachiko124 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native speaker but the Japanese article appears to contain a lot of excess detail spuriously referenced to the High Court documents. Quite a bit of this has clearly been directly translated to the English version.
It's no easy task but a summary of the court documents only (at least outside of any sections pertaining to media/public response) would make this article easier to understand. 92.237.111.89 (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I have added some details of Miyano’s background to debunk the false rumor about him asking her out and being a classmate. This is factually incorrect. Sachiko124 (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2022[edit]

There is a line in this article that’s repeated for no reason I believe. “He was 17 at the time of the murder.” 76.86.244.21 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't put the boys in the death row?[edit]

The boys obviously need to be dead, that's not normal what they did and just 20 years in jail (5-8) for the other boys too, the judge did a wrong job they should be tortured and then death row Junko didn't deserve any of that. And the 100+ boys should be found and killed.I might be a 11 years old girl but the judge needs to open his mind that's not normal! I


46.161.88.18 (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judges are not supposed to open their minds, they apply law.
Japanese law does not permit the death penalty for minors, along with their commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which forbids execution under the age of 18. Branches of legal thinking that emphasise rehabilitation over punishment might say that it is generally a net benefit to society to attempt to rehabilitate someone, or that ambiguity does not permit execution, or that someone who is not of the age of majority can not be held fully legally responsible... etc etc
If you read the Japanese high court ruling, it's clear that this extreme case was given the absolute maximum punishment permissable by law.
Reading this made me feel nauseous, I do not envy the lawyers and judges that had to debate and try this case 92.237.111.89 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world is this?[edit]

Would someone verify or revert the recent edit? It's vaguely sourced and potentially a misinformation. Her death has been called "Concrete-encased high school girl murder case" since her corpse was dumped in a vacant lot in an industrial zone, buried with concrete inside the drum; and now we have internet and this time, her death has been buried with misinformation (i.e. too graphic yet unverified details, "44 days," etc.) ... Like What in the world is this? ~~ Balistix 21 (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nvm. I guess I can edit now. Revert this tab. Sorry. Thanks.

Truly yours... ~~ Balistix 21 (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about what I've done. Balistix 21 (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verify this. I'm so done. Balistix 21 (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they’ve got this from Japanese blogs. I have read some that say such things but since nothing was featured in the court documents, it’s safe to delete it to avoid misinformation. Sachiko124 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edit you were referring to. According to accurate sources, the victim’s autopsy was not as exaggerated like most foreign articles say. Sachiko124 (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't put the boys in death row?[edit]

What the boys did to her was totally not okay, the 100+ boys should be find and be tortured and be sentenced to death..the judge did the worst decision! Imagine being tortured like that for 44 days in a row..Junko Furuta never deserved the torture that she got from the boys.. Rest Easy Angel 🤍🕊️ 83.134.23.38 (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a short section clarifying the legality of execution in Japan/the age of majority/the system of civil law could be added? Whilst it is not the direct subject of the article, it could be added as a short subsection and would help prevent the tabloid style edits "44 days..." for those that are not Japanese speakers. 92.237.111.89 (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the whole article or read up some sources? It's 40 or 41 days, not 44! Balistix 21 (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Kitty Genovese[edit]

I heard of this case as like a Japanese version Kitty Genovese case, referring to perceived indifference of many bystanders. There are sources saying over 100 people were involved 92.58.221.64 (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word "perceived" is doing a lot of work there, as the Kitty Genovese urban legend was just that - an urban legend. No such indifference existed in that case, and the perpetrator was indeed caught by the community. I don't believe Furuta was similar to either the legend or the facts. SnowFire (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can someone edit prosecution section[edit]

In the prosecution section, isn't it supposed to be Minato's mother that paid Furuta's parents compensation instead of Miyano's? 89.136.7.196 (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the page[edit]

Is about the motive 94.66.58.83 (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference No. 26[edit]

The reference Number 26 in this article is spam, I recommend the administration delete it. Aattllzz (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link seems to be unavailable now. I'll be archived soon. Thanks for spotting. Rasnaboy (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Junko_Furuta&oldid=1215672444"