Some formal Military Tribunal matter viz: 1. Order convening court ( NOT including the schedule, which will come at the very end.) 2. Charge sheet endorsed by the officer who served the same. 3. List of counsel & C. Army Form A - 4 (adapted) FORM FOR ASSEMBLY AND PROCEEDINGS OF MILITARY COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF WAR CRIMINALS A - Order convening the Court. At Singapore this 25th day of March 1947. Whereas it appears to me, the undersigned, an officer authorised under the Regulations for the trial of War Criminals to convene a Military Court, that the persons named in the annexed Schedule have committed the war crimes mentioned therein; And whereas I am of opinion that it is not necessary to appoint as president or as a member of the court an officer having one of the legal qualifications mentioned in Rule of Procedure, 93 (B ; I hereby convene a Military Court to try the said persons and to consist of President. Lt. Col. H.E.R. Smith R.A. Members. Lt. Col. C. MONOD de FROIDEVILLE R.N.E.I.A. Major E.N. HEBDEN R.A. Major A.H. Van ZELLER Northamptons. Captain E.H. DUNSFORD A.B.R.O. Waiting Member. (Signed) L.H. Cox MAJ-GEN. Commander SINGAPORE DISTRICT ( Convening Officer). B2/ CHARGE SHEET The accused:- Sergeant Major JOTANI KITAICHI of the Imperial Japanese Army attached to Singapore Ammunition Depot. is charged with COMMITTING A WAR CRIME in that he On board the s.s. HOFUKU MARU on a voyage between Singapore and Japan, between the 4th July 1944 and the 21st September 1944, when in charge of a draft of British and Dutch Prisoners of War, was in violation of the laws and usages of war, concerned in the illtreatment of the said P.O.W. , resulting in the death of about ninety eight of them and in physical sufferings to many others. [ ER Rhead.? Offg: o o . Capt 6/3/47 Commanding Singapore Ammunition Depot To be tried by Military Court 22nd. Mar 1947 L.H. Cox Major-General, Commanding Singapore District. H.E.R. Smith Lt.Col. President No. 1 War Crimes Court 3. Proceedings of a Military Court held at Changi on 25 March 1947. Trial of Sjt Maj. JOTANI Kitaichi Members ( where not appointed by name in the convening order ) Prosecutor Major A.R. Sri VASTAVA (sic). 1 JAT REGT. D.A.J.A.G. Counsel/ (Defending Officer struck through) MURATA Kiichi. Barrister. Tokyo Supreme Court. assisted by Capt. D.G. SINCLAIR R.S. The accused answer(s) to his/(their) name(s) and number(s) {HS} The convening order is read in the presence of the accused. The President and Members are sworn. The interpreter and shorthand-writer are sworn. The accused is/(are) arraigned on the charge(s). On plea of guilty - R.P.35 (B is complied with. On plea of guilty - the accused is/(are) asked the following question : " Do you wish to apply for an adjournment on the ground that any of the regulations relating to procedure before trial have not been complied with and that you have been prejudiced thereby or on the ground that you have not had sufficient opportunity for preparing your defence ?". Answer No ! The prosecutor makes no/the attached opening address marked ...E..
Sorry about the inability to understand modern technology: have now avoided the smilies in the last post.
The first witness and his examination-in-chief. Note that the Opening Address by the Prosecution is not in the file. Tuesday, 25th March, 1947 - AM At 10.30 am. the Court assembled. Court: Accused, are you S/M Jotani Kitaichi? A: Yes sir. The Convening Order is read out by the President. The President, Members of the Court, Shorthand Writer and Interpreters are duly sworn in. The accused is arraigned on the charge and he pleads NOT GUILTY. Court: Defence Counsel, do you wish to apply for an adjournment on the grounds that any of the regulations relating to procedure before trial have not been com- plied with and that you have been prejudiced thereby or on the grounds that you have not had sufficient opportunity to prepare your defence? Defence: I am ready, sir. The Prosecutor makes his Opening Address and hands it to the Court as Exhibit "E" C.A. Rankine - 1st Prosecution Witness Examination in Chief The witness after being duly sworn states: - Q. What is your name and address? A. Charles Rankine; United Engineers, Malacca. Q. How are you employed? A. I am a mechanical engineer. Q. Can you remember where you were in the year 1944? A. I was a POW in Chungkai Camp, Siam, during the first part. Q. And later? A. I was taken on board a ship. I was on board that vessel for about three months. It was sunk. I was subsequently in Formosa. Q. From where did you start on the ship you have stated? A. We started from Singapore. Q. About what date? A. To the best of my recollection sometime in June. Q. Can you recollect the name of the ship? A. The name of the ship seemed to vary a bit but it was Hayuku Maru, Kaiyushu Maru or Habuku Maru. Q. How many POWs were in the party in which you were included? A. In the neighbourhood of 1250 men. Q. Of what nationalities were they? A. There were about 1,000 British soldiers and 250 Dutch. Q. Who was in charge of this party? A. Capt. Gibson of the 122 Field Regiment. - 2 - C.A. Rankine - Examination in Chief Q. Who was Capt. Gibson? A. He was the senior British officer on board and in charge of the party. Q. Was there any person in charge of the POWs from the Japanese side? A. There were two Japanese W/Os. Q. Can you recollect their names? A. The senior Japanese W/O had a name like Jitana. Q. Have you seen Jitana? A. He is in Court now. There he is! ( Trans.Note " There he is!" written in hanwritten ink. Not typed.) Q. What was his position on board the ship? A. He was in charge of the POWs corresponding, I should imagine, to a British Draft Conducting Officer. Q. From where did he accompany the POWs? A. From Chungkai Camp, Siam. Q. How long did he remain in charge of the draft? A. Until the ship was sunk approximatelly on the 21st Sept. Q. When you boarded the ship in Singapore as you have stated, can you tell the court how the POWs were accomodated in the ship? A. At the beginning the POWs were accomodated on the top flats of two cargo holes.(sic) Q. Was the ship a cargo ship or a troop carrier? A. The vessel had originally been built as a cargo vessel but I understand it had accomodated Japanese troops. Q. Can you tell the Court how many holds were there in the ship? A. The vessel was about 8,000 tons. She was a cargo tramp. She had four cargo holds. The POWS were accomodated, to begin with, in two of the holds only. Q. Can you tell us in which holds they were in? A. Starting from the front of the ship they would be in No.2 and No. 3 holds. Q. How many POWs were accomodated in each hold? A. The party of 1250 men was divided in two and half went to the forward part of the ship and the remaining half to the aft portion of the ship. Q. Which hold were you in? A. I was accomodated in No.3 hold. Q. Were the POWs comfortably accomodated in your hold? A. There was considerably overcrowding in the hole (sic) and for the first day or so we were confined to the hold but it was necessary to allow men to sleep on the deck afterwards. Q. Did you receive permission to sleep on the deck later on? A. Yes, permission was granted to sleep on the deck after the first night or so. Q. Can you, from your knowledge, tell us how the other two holds were occupied? A. We were not allowed to go to the forward portion of the ship where the other half of the men were confined as it meant passing the engine room and the centre part of the ship where the Japanese personnel were accomodated. We were not allowed there except occasionally on duty. Q. To your knowledge, was there any space which could be occupied by the POWs to relieve the congestion? A. -3- C.A. Rankine - Examination in Chief A. Later on the No.4 hold in the aft was cleared at Manila and accomodation was provided there. Q. Who were accomodated in No.4 hold in Manila? A. In No.4 hold the Dutch company of 250 men approximately were accomodated and a part of it was turned into a hospital for the sick. Q. Was the ship marked in any way to show that it was carrying POWs? A. There was no marking on the ship to identify it as a POW vessel. Q. Was the hold in which you were in ventilated in any other way except by the hatch opening? A. For a short time a canvas shute was rigged up but it was quite ineffective and finally removed. Q. Was the hatch left opened all the time? A. The hatch was opened all the time except for a portion which was covered in and rice was placed on top of that. Q. Where did the POWs keep their kit? A. The only kit we had was what we could carry and we had to keep them beside us when sleeping. Q. Did the POWs have any rations with them? A. The only food we carried were small things like sugar which we previously purchased in Siam. Q. Can you tell the Court what the food situation was like on the ship? A. The food situation on board was extremely bad. A reasonable amount of rice was issued but very little apart from that. The rations often consisted of rice, about a teaspoonful of salt. Occasionally we had a small quantity of not more than a teaspoon- ful of dried fish. While we were lying in Manila Bay occasionally had a small quantity of soup consisting of a local vegetable known as "kangkong." Q. Were the rations that you have described given all through the voyage? A. Yes. While we were at sea between Singapore and Manila we were mostly given salted rice and a little fish. Only in Manila Bay did we see any greens and only in very small quantities. Q. Were your rations improved in Manila Bay? A. The quantity did not improve but the quality improved in as much as we had a small quantity of greens if that could be considered as an improvement. Q. How often did you get greens in Manila Bay? A. At this stage it is very difficult to say but we got it on a few occasions, never more than a meal a day did we ever get greens. Q. What can you say regarding the health of the POWs on board ship? A. It was extremely bad. To the best of my knowledge approximately 98 men died on board of complaints like dysentery, beriberi and pellagra. Q. When you started out from Singapore were any of the POWs sick? A. No. There was no real sickness in the party. We had been selected in Siam because we were the fittest men in rather a large camp. We had been medically examined on board by both British and Japanese medical men. We all had been subjected to the dysentry (sic) test. Q. Was any officer amongst the POWs in charge of the medical side? A. There were two RAMC Capts. on board, Capt. Lewis and Capt. Brahms. Brahms died. - 4 - C.A. Rankine - Examination in Chief Q. To your knowledge did the RAMC Capts. have any medical supplies with them while on board the ship? A. A small quantity of medical supplies were taken from Chungkai Camp but it did not last very long. Q. You have told the Court that 98 POWs died in Manila Bay? Court: That is not so. The witness said that while he was on board 98 POWs died. Prosecution: I am sorry. Q. You have stated that while on board 98 POWs died. Can you tell the Court if these POWs were treated by POW doctors, and if, to your knowledge, there were sufficient medical supplies available for the treatment of the sick? A. These men were treated by our own doctors and medical orderlies, but so far as I know, there were not sufficient medical supplies to make the treatment effective. Q. To your knowledge, was any action taken by the Japanese to treat the sick aboard the vessel? A. At one time in Manila Bat about 40 or 50 men were taken ashore, the very worst sick. Q. What happened when you left Manila Bay? A. I myself was very sick with beriberi and was confined to the bottom of the hold but we got about a day and a half to two days out when the vessel was sunk by American planes. Q. Were the POWs sufficiently provided with life jackets? A. There were sufficient life jackets to go round. Q. Did the POWs carry the jackets all the time on the vessel? A. Each man had a life jacket and he had to keep it near his bag. Q. You have told the Court that the ship was sunk. Now will you tell the Court what efforts were made by the Japanese commander or the person in charge of the ship to save the lives of POWs? A. The vessel sank very quickly and I personally did not see any efforts made but I emphasise the sinking of the vessel was rapid. I should say it took about 4 minutes. Q. On board the ship who was the person in authority and responsible for the POWs? A. The accused was the man in authority over the POWs. Q. Was there any superior Japanese officer aboard the vessel from whom he took orders? A. To the best of my knowledge he had complete control over the POWs. Q. Who was the officer who went out inspecting the POWs or inspecting the holes (sic) each day or alternate days or how many times the holds might have been inspected? Defence: That is a leading question, sir. We have received no evidence that someone had inspected the holds yet. Prosecution: I do not think it is a leading question. My question is " Was there a superior officer who issued orders to the accused, and if there was one, he would say there was one. I am not suggesting any answer. Court: But the last question was " Who was the person who inspected - 5 - C.A. Rankine - Examination in Chief Court: the holds, if ever they were inspected. Is that not a leading question. Defence: It is taken for granted that the holds were inspected. Court: Will you put that question again? Prosecution: Shall I split the question, sir? Court: Make it more intelligible. Q. Were the holds in which the POWs lived inspected by the Japanese? A. Yes. Q. Who inspected the holds? A. The accused inspected the holds and sometimes his No.2, the second W/O came round. Q. Were your meals ever inspected? A. I cannot recollect the Japanese taking a great interest over our food except the captain of the ship. He had no official control over the POWs. Q. Will you tell the Court the kind of treatment you received from the Japanese on board? A. The policy of the Japanese personnel on board seemed to be one of complete indifference to the fate of the POWs and with occasional moments of persecution. Q. Will you tell the Court as to why you hold that view? A. The accused on occasions used to go round among the POWs and chased them or beat them with a stck or a rope on the slightest pretext. Q. On how many occasions did you see the accused illtreating the POWs? A. I was on board that ship for about three monts (sic) and there were so many occasions that I couldn't clearly give the number. Q. Were you yourself beaten by the accused? A. The accuse was in the habit of suddenly chasing the POWs off sections of the deck and I had been struck but merely as one of a group. Q. To your knowledge had any of the POWs been seriously struck? A. Many men suffered pain at the time but I cannot recollect him having seriously disabled anybody on board. Q. Can you from your memory tell the Court the names of any POWs that you might have known on board the ship? A. The senior British officer on board was Capt. Gibson of 122 Field Regt. R.A. The medical officers on board were Capt. Lewis and Capt. Brahms of the RAMC. Capt. Brahms died on board. My personal company commander was Capt. Deans. I believe he was an officer of 18th Division Infantry, Royal Norfolk Regt. The other company commanders were Lt. Lawrence of the Gordon Highlanders and Capt. Evans of the Manchester Regt. The other two members were L/Cpl. Hunter and Sapper Masters, both of Johore Volunteer Engineers. Q. You stated that Capt. Deans was in charge of your group of POWs? A. Yes. Q. Did your group ever attempt to represent your grievances through your group commander to the Japanese? A. The officers on board continually tried to improve conditions by approaching the Japanese and they used to report the results to us on coming back. - 6 - C.A. Rankine - Examination in Chief Q. Can you tell the Court what they reported to you? A. They reported that they could not get any co-operation from the Japanese. No more questions by Prosecution. At 11.30 am the Court adjourns.
The defence now has the opportunity to cross-examine. It lasts for about thirty seconds. At 11.40 am the Court reassembles. C.A. Rankine - Cross Examination Q. You have stated that at Manila 98 deaths occurred. How did you come to know the exact number of deaths? A. The men who died were sown up in sacks and lowered over the ship's side. We, POWs, naturally kept an account of our own deaths. The figure I gave is approximate. No more questions by Defence. No Re-Examination.
The Court takes rather longer and then gives the Defence another chance..... C.A. Rankine - Questions by the Court Q. Mr. Rankine, with regard to the number of deaths that occurred. Do you know of any person who kept an accurate record? A. One of the S/Ms whose name I cannot quite recollect, kept an accurate record and the figure 98 was made on my recollection of what he told me. Q. You said you were accomodated in No.3 hold. Did you sleep on the hatch, in between decks, or were you accomodated in bunks? A. I like to make it clear that when we boarded the ship we had a cargo of, what I understand to be, iron ore and they filled up two flats and we were accomodated on one flat. The vessel was very bad as far as cargoes were concerned and subsequently all cargoes were unloaded in Manila Bay in order to increase the speed of the ship and we had more space there after. Q. Did you live in between decks or were there bunks? A. On top of the cargo flat there was a large wooden platform running round the hold. Half slept on the platform and the other half on the deck. Q. Was there room for every man to stretch out and lie down comfortably? A. For the first night or so there was not really sufficient accomodation. Each POW had an Army pack and that caused considerable trouble. We were also given a small pile of rubber to carry to Japan. I do not know why but it seemed a very odd thing to do and the congestion was considerable on the first two nights but subsequently we were allowed to sleep on deck. Q. With regard to your rations you said the food was inadequate. Can you give the Court some idea of the bulk of the food issued daily and how many meals you had? A. We received two meals a day. To begin with we got thin rice porridge in the morning and in the evening we had boiled rice. With the first meal we generally got about a teaspoonful of salt and the second meal, generally a small portion of salt fish, not very much more than a teaspoonful. The real difficulty was the shortage of nourishing food. All the time large numbers of the men got sick and there was not enough rice and nourishing food. - 7 - C.A. Rankine - Questions by the Court A. The only reason the men who were more or less healthy got enough to eat was that large numbers of men got dysentry and were unable to eat rice. Q. Were there any special foods provided for dysentry and beriberi patients? A. No really nourishing food was supplied. They used to be provided by our own people with gruel made from rice. That was the only special diet that they got. Q. Were any other ingredients included in the congee that you had apart from rice and water? A. No. Q. You said the captain of the ship took an interest in your meals. In what way exactly? A. On one occasion or more than one occasion we were living on condensed water and the condensers were leaking and the water was salt. He took interest, in as much as he himself procured for us a small portion of fresh water. Q. What was the daily water ration? A. It was never more than a teacupful of water. Q. That is in addition to tea or any other beverage? A. No. The actual tea was made with this water. Q. Can you estimate how many POWs there were in Chungkai Camp when your draft was selected? A. I would say between 9,000 and 12,000 men. Q. Were there any guards apart from the two W/Os? A. There were a number of Korean guards. Q. Was their behaviour satisfactory? A. To begin with a number of them were rather vicious but the voyage lasted so long that even they lost interest. Q. You say that the vessel left Singapore sometime towards the end of June and it was sunk on 21st Sept. Can you give the Court more details of ports of call and the approximate dates? A. The vessel left Singapore and it sailed south towards Java. A friend of mine had a pocket compass and we roughly followed the route. It was not an accurate compass. The ship then went east- wards towrds Borneo and it coasted along Borneo and called at Miri. We had been left behind by various convoys. I am an engineer and to the best of my knowledge the main bearings and the engines were going. We lay off Miri for about 10 days and joined another convoy. We sailed along the coast of Borneo and across the Straits of Pelawan down to the Philippines. The vessel then went into Manila Bay. She lay for about two months in Manila Bay and various attempts were made to increase the efficiency and speed of the engines. That was my estimate. I was not in a position to say exactly. She ran various trials around Manila Bay evidently testing the engines and there were one or two occasions when there seemed to be an alarm in Manila but I never saw any planes and all the shipping was dispersed. Q. From what you have said it would appear that you arrived in Manila at about the first week in August? A. Yes. Q. You said that No.4 hold was cleared at Manila. You were then referring to the removal of iron ore. Isn't that so? A. The top portion of No.4 hold had no iron ore. The bottom two flats were iron ore and the top flat seemed to have a collection of pigeon sheds and these were removed from the hold. Q. (sic) - 8 - C.A. Rankine - Questions by the Court. Q. Can you give any estimate of the period which covered the 98 deaths? A. They all occurred after we arrived in Manila. To the best of my knowledge that was my recollection. Q. Did you ever learn what happened to the sick that were left in Manila? A. I heard that they went to a prison camp and a number died. After the ship was sunk I was taken to Formosa. Other survivors were taken to Manila and I met them later on at a camp. That was only hearsay. Q. You said that No.4 hold was set aside as a hospital. Did all the deaths occur in the hospital? A. Yes. As soon as a man became really sick he was sent there because of the risk of infection. Q. Did the POWs do their own cooking? A. Yes but under the supervision of a Japanese member of the crew. Q. Was that in the ship's galley or on special ovens? A. It was done on steam heated jacketed pans alongside No.3 hold. Q. You said that part of the deck was closed off and you were not allowed along there because that part was used by, I believe you said Japanese civilians, and that in order to go from one part of the ship to another you had to pass the engine room. Can you tell the Court how many Japanese civilians there were? A. The number of civilians and the people who came on board varied. I remember about 20 Japanese officers being on board at one time. Q. Those that sailed with the ship. Did they remain in good health? A. I never heard of any Japanese being ill. They looked remarkably healthy to me. Court: Defence Counsel, do you wish to put any questions through the Court? Defence: Yes sir. Q. Do you recall when the first death occur (sic) in Manila Bay? A. That is an extremely difficult question. I would say after the first month but it was very difficult to remember. Q. Did you ever talk to the accused about the deaths which occurred? A. I had no conversation with the accused on board the ship. No questions by the Prosecution. No more questions by the Court.
Absolutely wonderful papiermache. Where have you got these from? May I use them in my family tree to go with my great grand-father's military history?
Thank you for the bouquet, kivo, which I have replied to on your " Dvr. W. Hancock" thread. The next witness examination-in-chief, which continues into Day 2. - 9 - C.A. Hunter - 2nd Prosecution Witness Examination in Chief The witness after being duly sworn states:- Q. What is your name and present address? A. C.A. Hunter, Calvin Estate, Bahau, Negri Sembilan. Q. How are you employed at Bahau? A. I am a planter. Q. Where were you in 1944? A. In the early part of 1944 I was a POW in Chungkai Camp, Siam. Q. Who made you POW? A. The Japanese. Q. Where did you go from Chungkai Camp? A. I was taken down to Singapore. Q. About what time was that? A. At the end of June or the early part of July. Q. Can you tell the Court why you were taken down to Singapore? A. I was selected to go on a party for Japan. Q. What did the party consist of? A. We were all selected as being the fittest men in Chungkai Camp and therefore we were put on the party. Q. How many POWs were in the party? A. On our party that moved to Singapore there were about 750. Q. What was the nationality of the POWs? A. They were mostly British with a certain number of Dutch. Q. Who was in charge of your party? A. A man by the name of Jotani. Q. Can you identify him if you see him? A. Yes. Q. Is he anywhere in this Court? A. Yes. ( witness points to the accused) Q. How long did he remain in charge of your party? A. He was in charge until the party was broken up when the ship was sunk. Q. Can you remember the name of the ship on which the party went? A. I understand the name was Hokuku Maru. Q. When did you start from Singapore? A. About the middle of July. Q. What was the number of POWs when you embarked on the ship? A. 1300. Q. How were these 1300 POWs accomodated on the ship? A. They were put in two holds. The space between decks and the holds was probably about 9 feet and a platform was then built half way up which gave a head room of about 4 feet. We were packed into that as closely as we could fit. Q. To your knowledge who was in charge of the embarkation? A. Jotani. Q. Who allotted the accommodation on board the ship? A. I cannot say. Q. Approximately how many POWs were in each hold? - 10 - C.A. Hunter - Examination in chief A. About 600. Q. Was there accomodation for 600 POWs in that hold? A. No. Q. Then how did the POWs live in that hold? A. Some of the POWs were on the hatch boards of the lower hold. In the daytime they all had to huddle and get to one side in order to allow the people who were on the platform to get in and out. Q. Were you allowed on the deck? A. Yes. Q. Were you allowed freely on deck or was it restricted? A. Normally we were allowed freely on deck but we were not allowed to sleep there though the people did sleep there at times until an objection was raised and we would then go below. Q. Could you go anywhere you like on the deck? A. No. Q. You said that the POWs were allotted to two holds. How many were there and by whom were they occupied? A. No.1 hold accomodated the Japanese and Korean guards. No.2 hold the POWs and No.3 the afterdeck POWs and to begin with No.4 hold was empty. Q. How many Korean guards were there to your knowledge? A. I cannot remember. Q. Were there any other passengers on board the ship? A. I believe there were some Japanese nurses. Q. Where did they live? A. They had accomodation up near the bridge. Q. What was the accomodation if any POW got sick? A. To begin with just the place where he was lying and later they made No.4 hold available as a hospital. Q. When was No.4 hold made into a hospital? A. When the number of sick became really bad. Q. You have stated that you started from Singapore about the end of June or the middle of July. When did the POWs started (sic) getting sick? A. When we were in Manila Bay possibly a month after leaving Singapore. Q. Would you describe to the Court the hold you were in? A. There was just room for a man to lie down. If you happened to be near a tall fellow you would probably have his feet on your head or his head on your feet. We were touching each other. There was no room to move from side to side. Q. How was the hole (sic) ventilated? A. About half of the hatch was off? Q. What was the protection from the rain? A. For the people who were sleeping on the hatch boards in the lower hold there was no protection from the rain. Q. Where did the POWs keep their baggage? A. What baggage you had you used for a pillow and spread out and used to lie on. Q. What was the condition of the food on board ship? A. To begin with for the first week at Singapore the food was comparitively good. Then it very rapidly deteriorated until - 11 - C.A. Hunter - Examination in Chief A. we were in Manila Bay. Then we received in the morning about a pint cup of porridge made from barley. In the evening we got about a pint cup of rice. Occasionally we got soup which might have been made with some vegetables although it tasted like there was very little vegetable in it. We had an issue of fish which was so small that we divided it up into four sections of the ship and we got about a dessert spoonful of dried fish every four days. Q. Did you get any drinking water and tea? A. Water was limited. We got a cup of so-called tea for each meal. Q. How many meals did the POWs get? A. Two. Q. Were they sufficient? A. No. Q. What did it consist of? A. For the greater part of the time the morning meal was just barley porridge and the evening meal was rice and soup and very often rice alone. Q. You have stated that in the course of the voyage you stopped at Manila Bay. Were the rations improved in Manila Bay? A. The amount of stuff which came on board improved in quantity but the amount of food issued to the POWs did not. Food was left lying on one of the upper decks exposed to the sun. Instead of being issued in sufficient quantity, it was left only to rot and thrown overboard. Q. Where was the food brought from? A. The food was brought from Manila or somewhere. Q. How many times did you witness supplies being brought in Manila? A. About once a week. Q. Will you describe to the Court what were the sanitary arrangements like on board the ship? A. There was a large box divided into three compartments with a hole at the bottom. It was slung over the side of the ship lashed to the rails. Q. How many boxes were there? A. There were three to begin with but one was washed away in a heavy sea and we were left with two. Q. How did the POWs use these two boxes? A. The men used to queue for the boxes but there were men who were so bad that they used a tin and went to the side and washed. Q. Was there an officer amongst the POWs who was in charge of sick POWs? A. Yes, Capt. Lewis. Q. Did the POWs or the medical officer bring any medical supplies from the camp? A. Yes, but it was a very limited quantity. Q. What were the medical facilities like aboard the ship? A. For the greater part of the time they were non-existent. Q. How did the POWs fare then? A. They fared very badly. Q. Why did you say that? A. There were hundreds of sick men and there were no means of treating them. There was an MO but he could do nothing. Q. Were they sick all the time aboard the ship when you saw them? - 12 - C.A. Hunter - Examination in Chief A. They were fit men when they came on board the ship. Q. You have stated that they were fit men when they came on board the ship and that they were sick on board the ship and there was no medical treatment. What happened to the sick men? A. A very large number of them died and a number of them went mad. Q. How many sick POWs died to your knowledge? A. Over 90. Q. Can you tell the Court when the first death occurred on board the ship and where? A. After we had been in Manila Bay about three weeks. Q. Were any arrangements made by the Japanese on board the ship to treat the sick men? A. The Japanese MO visited the ship. He walked round the decks and looked down into the holds. He went ashore. Later on that day 50 sick men were removed to the hospital. Then a certain amount of medical supplies were brought from ashore, but the amount brought was useless. Q. Were you ever sick on the ship? A. Yes, beriberi. Q. Were there any surgical cases aboard the ship? A. Yes there were two surgical cases and probably about 60 minor cases. Q. Did the surgical cases survive? A. Yes. Q. Was any assistance given to them by the Japanese on board? A. As far as I know they got no assistance. Q. You have stated that over 90 POWs died in Manila Bay. How were the dead bodies disposed of? A. They were sown up in sacking with a part of iron ore tied to them and taken out in a motor boat and dumped at the mouth of the bay. Q. To your knowledge were any of the dead buried properly in a Christian manner? A. To begin with a few cases coffins were sent on board and the bodies were taken away. I do not know whether or not they were buried in the Christian manner. Q. Can you tell the Court as to how the POWs were treated by the Japanese? A. They were starved. They were not given sufficient water and very often they had inadequate medical supplies and very often for no reason at all they were beaten. Q. How many times to your knowledge were the prisoners beaten? A. I have witnessed at least half a dozen occasions. Q. Who beat them? A. Jotani. Q. Were you ever beaten by Jotani? A. No. Q. Can you name the POWs who were beaten by Jotani? A. No because in most cases he was beating them indiscriminately right and left as they happened to be near. Q. What did he beat them with? A. Whatever was to hand, an iron bar, a brush, a piece of rope, a piece of wood. Q. Can you tell the Court from your memory where he beat the POWs? A. Most of the occasions I have witnessed was down in the hold. - 13 - C.A. Hunter - Examination in Chief A. On two other occasions it was when people were trespassing a part of the ship which was supposed to be prohibited. Q. What was the extent of their injuries? A. Bruises and abrasions. Q. Have you seen those bruises and abrasions? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell the Court what was the life-saving equipment on board for the POWs? A. There was supposed to be a life-belt for every POW but whether there was or not I could not say. There were two proper life- boats and a dinghy. Q. Did each POW have a life-belt? A. In my hold each POW had a life-belt. Q. When you started from Singapore, can you describe to the Court the route the ship followed and the ports the ship called at? A. As far as I can make out it followed the route to Java and then the coastline along Borneo. It called at Miri and then we put in at a number of islands until we reached Manila Bay. Court: Defence Counsel and Capt. Sinclair. This interpreter is quite good in translating English into Japanese but his Japanese into English is very poor and I think he ought to sit in Court and improve his vocabulary. I don't think we can carry on with your cross-examination. If I adjourn the Court until tomorrow morning will you be able to get a better Japanese-English interpreter? Defence: I will try to find one, sir. At 12.40 pm. the Court adjourns till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. ( page (4) (deleted) page 17 in handwritten ink ) The Court re-assembles at 1015 hours on 26th March 1947 pursuant to adjourn- ment. Present, the same President and Members of the Court. Examination-In-Chief of C.A. HUNTER ( Contd): Q. You described to the Court yesterday, your route from Singapore to Manila. Will you describe in short, your journey onwards from Manila? A. We left Manila on the 20th September, 1944; steamed all day till the evening, where we pulled into a bay on the coast; the following morning we started again at about nine in the morning. Then there was an explosion, and the whole ship shook; shook once more and water started gushing out of the bottom of the hold that we were in. Then there was a third explosion and we heard the sound of a plane and machine-gunning. The ship filled up very quickly. Most of the people estimated the time of the first bomb and the sinking of the ship to be about three minutes. As the hold filled up I kept to the centre of the hatchway and when the ship went down and the water from the hatchway stopped I floated up to the surface. When I got to the surface the area around was dotted with wreckage and men floating about. A certain proportion had no lifebelts - the reason for that being that some of the lifebelts were of wood, and some of kapok. The men were using the kapok lifebelts for pillows; on the in- structions of Jotani, the kapok lifebelts were taken away from the men to whom they had been issued and they were stacked in the centre of the hold in a pile; so that in the short time be- fore the ship sank, the men could not have all got hold of the lifebelts. Nearby was an escort vessel, which picked up the Japanese sur- vivors, and also picked up - I believe - about 50 p.o.ws. who happened to be nearby at the time. The escort vessel then steamed away and disappeared around the mainland. We were about two miles from the shore so most of us got hold of bits of wood and wreckage and tried to make their way towards the shore. I had made my way possibly about half-a-mile towards the shore by six o'clock in the evening when a fleet of about 20 coastal boats appeared and they then proceeded to pick up the survivors. This fleet of boats then anchored in the other same bay for the night and we started off the following morning. And during that day we were again attacked by planes which machine-gunned these vessels and sank one. Q. During the attack on the ship which you were sunk in, or during the time you were floating in the water, did you see the accused about? A. Yes; I saw the accused floating in the water with a sword in one hand and a despatch case in the other. Q. When the ship was attacked and it was sinking fast, to your knowledge, did the accused or any other Japanese on board the vessel make any attempt to rescue the p.o.ws.? A. I was not in a position to see that. Q. You have stated that you saw the accused floating in the water; can you say how he was picked up? A. He was picked up by a life-boat from the escort vessel. Q. Now, I want you to think of your journey right from Singapore till the time the ship sank, and tell the Court during the course of this voyage - how many times were your holds inspec- ted - and by whom? 26.3.47. A.M. page (5 struck through) 18 A. I cannot recall the number of times the hold was inspected, but when it was, it was always by Jotani. Q. Do you know of any incident on board the vessel in which any orders were issued by Jotani? A. Yes; there was an occasion when some sauce had been stolen from some Japanese. Jotani gave instructions that all the p.o.ws. had to be mustered on deck; he then ordered them to stand to attention and they were all to stand to attention till whoever had taken the sauce would admit it. Q. Who ordered the p.o.ws. to fall out, after that incident? A. I cannot recall whether Jotani was present at the fall-out, or not. Q. Were, to your knowledge, your meals of (sic) the kitchen inspected? A. I have often seen Jotani around the cookhouse, but whether it was for an inspection or not, I don't know. Q. Can you recollect if, on the ship there were any officers, or any Jap personnel who were superior in rank to Jotani? A. To my knowledge, there were no superior officers. Q. Who do you think - from the Jap side - was completely respon- sible ( in-charge ) of the p.o.ws. on the ship? A. Jotani was. Court: Do you think that, or do you know that, Mr. Hunter? A. Well, I don't know that; but it was generally known on the ship by everybody, including the officers who had contact with Jotani. No further questions.
Cross-examination of Hunter and extensive questioning by the President. References to a statement made by Hunter to Flt/Lt Wikinson, an RAAF officer, are to a document I have not seen. There may be further details in this document which the oral testimony did not bring out, and there may be confusion between this unseen statement and the current oral testimony. As follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. In which hold were you in on the Hofuku Maru? A. On the first hold of the after-deck. Q. Were you transferred to any other hold during the voyage? A. No. Q. Do you remember making a statement under oath in front of a Mr. Wilkinson on the 26th January 1947? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember that at that time you stated that No.4 hold was empty from the very first? A. Yes. Q. During the voyage you were always in hold No.3, and as a con- sequence, how did you come to know that No.4 hold was empty? A. Because I was always on deck and I could see. Q. Did you look into hold No.4 when you got on deck? A. Yes. Q. Have you been to the forward deck on your voyage? A. I have been. Q. Were you continuously on the forward deck, and on what kind of occasions did you go to the forward deck? A. I was out on the forward deck about three times. Q. Have you recollection who were in hold No.1 in the forward deck? A. Japanese personnel. 26.3.47. A.M. page (16) 19 Q. How many men were there under Jotani's command? A. I cannot recollect. Q. Do you recollect other Japanese troops besides the ones under S/M Jotani? A. There was some sick men returning to Japan, I think. Q. Do you remember the appendicitis operation which was executed during the voyage? A. Yes. Q. During the recuperation period of these patients after the operation, did the other p.o.ws. give these patients sufficient vegetables or fruits? A. The other p.o.ws. gave them such food as they received. Q. You state food; what kind of food did they give? A. Occasionally, we received some bananas - possibly once a week - which amounted to two bananas each, if we got them. Q. Did the p.o.ws. receive any other fruits apart from bananas? A. There were papayas brought on board but whether the p.o.ws., received them or not - I cannot say. Q. You stated that there was cargo in hold No.4; what kind of cargo was it? A. I believe it was iron-ore. No further questions. No re-examination. QUESTIONS BY THE COURT: Q. Mr. Hunter, you said that there were more than 90 deaths. Do you know of any person who kept an accurate record of these deaths? A. There was a Sergeant-Major who was keeping a record of these deaths, but I cannot recall his name. Q. In which hold was he? A. He was in the same hold as me. Q. You stated that in your draft from Siam there was 750 p.o.ws. Do you know where the others came from, because you also stated there was 1300 on the ship. A. They all came from Chungkai, but my particular lot of 750 was one draft on the train when we left. Q. Did the Captain of the ship, or any of the ship's officers take any interest in your welfare? A. I cannot say that they did. Q. You said that some of the p.o.ws. went mad. How many? A. In my hold, there were definitely four who went insane, but there were many who were approaching insanity - men who would sit beside you and ask you the same question all day long. For instance - " What is the news" - and you would say "No news." And he would keep on asking you this question all day long. There were people like that. Q. When you were in Chungkai camp, did you know any of the four men who subsequently went mad? A. Yes; one. Q. Was he insane then? A. No; he was perfectly sane. Q. Did you meet that man immediately after you embarked? A. He was in the same hold with me. 26.3.47.A.M. page (17) 20 Questions By the Court (contd). Q. And what was his mental condition then, I am speaking of his condition immediately after you embarked? A. He was perfectly normal. Q. And when did this particular man first begin to show signs of insanity? A. In about the fourth week, in Manila Bay. Q. Did the p.o.ws. discuss amongst themselves, the reasons as to why these men might have become insane? A. We knew it was due to vitamin deficiency, lack of B-2 tablets, and pellagra. Q. You said, that on the ship there were two life boats and the dinghy; have you any idea of the capacity of the life-boats? A. They held possibly about forty, for each boat. Q. Was there any additional life-saving equipment on the ship, apart from the life belts supplied to the p.o.ws.? A. I never saw any. Q. You have stated that you saw fresh vegetables lying on the deck and that they remained there until they rotted. Can you tell the Court how many kinds you saw there, and can you estimate the quantity you saw? A. Everytime we received rations in Manila, the green vegetables or sweet potatoes were stored on this outer deck and every time there was a surplus it had to be thrown away. Even to the potatoes we received in our meals, it was rotten for eat- ing. I thought many times that our rations might easily have been doubled by supplying us with the vegetables that had been lain on the deck to rot. Q. Do you mean your rations might have been doubled had the vege- tables been distributed - that which rotted on the decks? A. Yes, if that had been distributed immediately after receiving. Q. You stated in your evidence, that there were sixty minor surgical cases. Can you tell the Court in general terms, what these cases were? Were they caused by minor injuries in the ship, or diseases such as boils and ulcers? A. They were all due to beri-beri; the limbs swelled, and since there was no way of treating it by preparation of Vitamin B, the only relief that the medical officers could do was to make incisions on the instep of the foot and allow the fluid to drain down to the feet; and they did this to about sixty men without aneastetics (sic). Q. You spoke also of four major surgical operations; were those four surgical cases also made without aenesthetic (sc) ? A. Fortunately, the Medical officers had a small supply of spinal aenesthetic, which he injected in these people. Q. You have related several instances of maltreatment. Were com- plaints represented to Jotani by the p.o.ws. officers? A. I do not think the men would worry to report to the officers, because it was such an every-day occurence, and they knew this Jotani from Siam days - knowing what to expect. Q. So, this is based on your knowledge, that complaints were never made at the time? A. No; we considered it hopeless. No further examination.
The prosecution's third witness is the Japanese Sergeant who was the defendant's right-hand man. He has turned King's Evidence against his former comrade. He gives further detail about the voyage. This witness, NORO, Junichi, Sgt., has already been convicted as a war criminal, for which case see WO235/916. His sentence was to be imprisoned for 15 years. Two statements that he has made are referred to: neither are available on the file of this case, WO235/995. The whole of his evidence now follows: GP. 26.3.47. page (18) 21 Prosecutor: I would like to call now, Prosecution witness S/M Noro Junichi; as this witness has been found available to be present before the court, sir, his two statements will not be relied upon, and I will bring him into the box. Examination-in-chief of SM. NORO JUNICHI. Q. What is your name, rank and number? A. My name is S/M Noro Junichi. Q. Do you know the man in the dock? A. I do know. Q. Will you tell the Court his name? A. It is Jotani Kitaichi. Q. Where have you known him? A. I was on duty with him at the Siam p.o.w. camp. Q. How many occasions and places have you worked with the accused? A. I worked with him continuously for two years, Sir. Q. At what places were you in during these two years that you worked with Jotani? A. Mostly at the Siam p.o.ws. camp. Q. Do you ever remember going out with the accused on duty - out- side the Siam camp? A. Yes. Q. Where have you gone to? A. I went to Japan to send pows. there. Q. How many p.o.ws. did you take when you went on duty with the accused? A. I cannot tell you definitely; but I think it was 1200 to 1300. Q. What ship did you go by? A. It was the Hofuku Maru, sir. Q. Who was in charge of this party for the p.o.ws.? A. It was only Jotani Kaitichi, Sir. Q. What was your duty with Jotani? A. I was a guard, Sir. Q. What were you in charge of? A. I did not have any responsibility; I was just a guard. Q. Can you remember what time this ship left Singapore? A. I know sir; it was July, 1943. Q. Are you sure of the date? A. I am, sure. Q. Will you repeat the date again? A. July 4th, 1943. Q. Will you tell the Court the route that the ship followed and when it reached Japan? A. It sailed from Singapore on the fourth July; during our voyage we stopped at Miri and about 25/26 July we arrived at Manila. We sailed from Manila on 20th September; arrived at Takao (Formosa) and on the 25/26 November we arrived at Moji, Japan. Q. You said that you started on the ship Hofuku Maru. Did this ship carry you straight to Japan? A. No, sir. 26.3.47 page (19) 22 Q. Then what happened to the ship the Hofuku Maru? A. The Hofuku Maru was bombarded and sank on the 21st September, and I went to Japan on another ship. Q. You have stated that Jotani was in charge of the p.o.ws. Who loaded the p.o.ws. on the ship at Singapore? A. It was the Transportation Commdt., at that time. Q. Can you tell the Court as to who allotted the accomodation on the ship? A. It was done by Commander Jotani. Q. When the embarkation of the p.o.ws. on the ship was being done, was the accused present? A. I don't know if he was present. Q. Do you know that apart from the personnel aboard - was there any cargo on board the ship? A. I know. Q. Will you tell the court? A. There was bauxite on board, and packing cases also. Q. Where were the p.o.ws. accomodated? A. There (sic) were accomodated in the holds, Sir. Q. Discribe (sic) in more detail to the Court, as to which part of the ship, and how many p.o.ws. were accomodated in each hold? A. There were two holds on the forward deck and two holds on the after deck. And the p.o.ws. were accomodated in the after and forward parts of the deck in two holds. Q. Apart from the p.o.ws., what other personnel were aboard the ship? A. Other Japanese troops, Sir. Q. Apart from the Japanese troops, do you know if there were other passengers aboard? A. No, sir. Q. Where were the Japanese soldiers accomodated? A. In No.1 hold, Sir. Q. How many Japanese soldiers did the Hofuku Maru carry? A. I cannot tell definitely, sir; but I think it was about 50/60. Q. Who was in charge of these Japanese soldiers? A. S/M Takahashi. Q. Was there any Japanese soldier who was superior to Jotani? A. No, sir. Q. Did Takahashi in any way take responsibility for the p.o.ws.? A. He was commandant of the ship. Q. Did Takahashi ever inspect the p.o.ws.? A. I do not recollect, Sir. Q. Who inspected your hold? A. I think it was S/M Takahashi. Q. When you started from Siam camp with the p.o.ws., do you know if medical supplies were collected by the p.o.ws. and taken with them? A. According to the regulations of the Transportation of the p.o.ws., I think they had medical supplies. Q. Do you know from your knowledge, whether these medical supplies were carried by the p.o.ws. aboard the Hofuku Maru? A. I don't know because I was not present at the time. 26.3.47. A.M. Page (20) 23 Q. Did the p.o.ws. take any food aboard with them on the ship? A. We took the food in. Q. You have stated to the Court, that this ship the Hofuku Maru sank off Manila Bay; will you tell in brief as to how the ship sank? A. On the 21st, around 1000 hours, about 40/50 Allied Aircraft appeared in the sky and bombarded and machine-gunned the ship, sinking it. Q. Who gave the Japanese soldiers the order to leave the ship? Court: I do not see the point of your question, Major Srivastava ? Prosecutor: There were Japanese soldiers aboard the vessel and they must have received orders from somebody to abandon the ship. Who was the person who gave the order to aban- don the ship? Court: Very well, put that question through interpreter. A. It was S/M Jotani. Q. Can you tell from your knowledge, who gave the orders to the p.o.ws., to leave the ship? A. Right nearby where I was standing, S/M Jotani was present and he gave the orders to the Japanese troops, and he also gave the order to the p.o.ws. No further questions. CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. Did the p.o.ws. have life-preserving apparatus with them when the ship sank? A. They all had life-saving apparatus. Q. When were these life-jackets given to the p.o.ws.? A. It was had at Singapore when they embarked on the ship. Q. Were these life-jackets always in the hands of the p.o.ws. during the voyage? A. They always had them in their hands. Q. At the time of the sinking you said before, that S/M Jotani gave the order to leave the ship; did the p.o.ws. have their life- jackets with them? A. They also had it with them. Q. Do you remember the incident when medical supplies were got on board the Hofuku Maru at Manila? A. I remember. Q. By whom were these medical supplies brought on board? A. It was S/M Jotani. Q. Did you see that yourself? A. S/M Jotani was helping to bring in these medical supplies. Q. Do you know how these medical supplies were disposed of, when they were brought on the ship? A. To my recollection, S/M Jotani gave it to the p.o.ws. as soon as they were brought aboard. Q. Are there any facts as to the misappropriation of these medical supplies by the Japanese troops? A. I don't know. Q. Do you know of any facts as to whether the accused Jotani gave special rations to the p.o.ws. when the ship sailed from Miri, Borneo? 26.3.47. A.M. page (21) 24 A. I heard of it. Q. Well, with what object were these rations made - and what were the contents of those rations? A. The rations consisted mainly of sugar and other canned goods. Q. Did the ship get supplies of water from Borneo? A. Yes. Q. When the water supplies were made at Boeneo in Miri, did the accused make any special consideration towards it? A. The water at Miri was very bad, and as a consequence the accused gave creosote to purify the water. Q. At Manila when the was very intensified (sic), whereabouts did the ship anchor? A. It was outside Nanila Harbour. Q. How far was the distance from the shore? A. 7/8 miles, I think. Q. Do you know of the sicknesses that occured at Manila? A. I did know. Q. Did you ever hear what kind of diseases they were? A. I heard that it was mainly malaria. Q. On the same ship that you just said there was Jap troops; but besides these Japanese troops were there any other passengers? ( Interpreter asks for the question to be repeated ). Q. Were there any other Japanese in connection with the medical supplies? A. No. Q. Do you know that S/M Takahashi was on the same ship? A. I did know. Q. In which hold did he keep in? A. No.1 hold. Q. How many men were under the command of S/M Takahashi? A. About 50/60 men. Q. In the ship Hofuku Maru, the ship you were in - was there a man named Shikagi? A. I think there was a man of that name in the ship's crew. Q. Were there any Japanese nurses on the ship? A. No, sir. Q. In your statement, do you remember stating that there were 90 Japanese troops on the ship? A. I remember. Q. Do you know Lt. Ino? A. Yes. Q. What were the duties of Lt. Ino. (sic) A. He was the senior officer on our voyage to Japan. Q. When you left the p.o.w. camp in Siam, did you receive medical supplies from Lt. Nosawa? A. I think I received medical supplies according to the Transporta- tion of the p.o.ws. Q. What were the duties of this man Shikagi, whom you have just named? 26.3.47. A.M. page (22) 25 A. He was in charge of the food supply on the ship. Q. You said that Shikagi was a member of the crew; but what was his rank in the Japanese army? A. At that time, he was a civilian attached to the Army. Q. Will you give the rank of Shikagi once more? A. I think he was a civilian attached to the Army troops at that time. President: Captain Sinclair, your duty in this Court is to advise the Defence as to military procedure only, and not to conduct the cross-examination. Will you confine yourself to military procedure. No further questions. No re-examination. QUESTIONS BY THE COURT: Q. S/M Noro, how is it that you are so certain that it was the 4th July that you sailed from Singapore? A. It is because I went along myself, Sir. Q. You say it was in 1943. Are you certain of that? A. It was 1943, sir. Q. When did you return to Malaya? A. It was in March 1945. Q. How long were you in Japan? A. I made a mistake in saying it was 1943, Sir; it was in 1944. Q. What was your rank at that time? A. Sergeant, Sir. Q. And what was the rank of Jotani? A. Sergeant, Sir. Q. How many p.o.ws. were accommodated in No.2 hold - that is the after hold of the forward deck? A. There were three holds allotted to these p.o.ws., I think 1/3 of the p.o.ws. were allotted to each hold, Sir. Q. Which hold did you live in? A. I lived at the guard-house. Q. And where did Jotani stay? A. He was with me, Sir. Q. And where was the guard-house? A. It was on the bridge, Sir. Q. Was it a ship's cabin? A. No; it was a small hut rigged up for the crew of the anti- aircraft gunners. Q. What unit did S/M Takahashi belong to? A. I don't know his unit, sir. Q. Was he anything to do with the Chungkai camp? A. He did not have any connection with the p.o.ws. camps, Sir. Q. Was he an infantry or artillery man? A. I don't know, Sir. Q. Was he going back to Japan? A. He was not going back to Japan, he disembarked at Manila. Court Examination of S/M Noro ( contd): page (13) 26 Q. Did he disembark when you arrived in Manila? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why was Lt. Ino going back to Japan? A. He was also connected with the transportation of the p.o.ws., Sir. Q. Did he get on the ship at Singapore? A. Yes. Q. And did he continue on the ship until it was sunk? A. He was on a different boat. Q. So that Lt. Ino did not board on the Hofuku Maru at all? A. Yes, sir. Q. You said that medical supplies were brought aboard the ship at Manila by Jotani. Did he carry them aboard? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did S/M Takahashi at any time between July 4th when the ship sailed till the 25/26 July when he disembarked at Manila, any- time interfere in any way with S/M Jotani in his administration of the p.o.ws.? A. As he was the ship's commdt. I think he might have given orders to Jotani. Q. What sort of orders? A. I do not know what sort of orders he gave, but as S/M Jotani was under S/M Takahashi's command, I think he received orders from him. Q. These medical supplies that S/M Jotani carried on board at Manila Bay - how much was the package? A. To my recollection, the width of the packages were 20 centi- metres and the length around 80 centimetres. Q. What was in the packages - do you know? A. I did not know the contents, Sir. Q. When S/M Takahashi disembarked at Manila, who then took over the ship as commandant? A. It was S/M Jotani. Q. You said the Japanese visited the ship in Singapore; were the supplies put on board enough, or adequate to supply everyone with rations throughout the trip? A. I do not know the quantity of medical supplies. Examination closed.
The prosecution case now deals with the manner by which witnesses in the United Kingdom had identified the defendant. The interviewer of the defendant makes a brief appearance. The affidavits are read to the court. These documents have already been posted here. The prosecution closes. Prosecutor: I wish now, Sir, to proceed with the documentary evidence, but before I read out the affidavits, I would like to point out that the photo identifi- cation attached to this, were made by the various witnesses in the countries they were in, by the photographic plates that were sent to London. Court: Do you mean to say that they have not referred to Jotani by name? 26.3.47.A.M. page (14) 27 Prosecutor: They have, Sir, but I submit that this is not sufficient. They have seen the photographs which were sent to the J.A.G. in London, he identifies him in the plate and then makes reference to the number. ( The photographic plate is shown to the Court). Prosecutor: I would now like to call S/Sgt. Flatfort to speak about the photographs. PROSECUTION WITNESS - S/SGT. FLATFORT Witness is duly affirmed. Examination-In-Chief. Q. What is your name and rank, and address? A. S/Sgt. H.Flatfort, War Crimes Legal Section. Q. Will you describe to the Court your duties in short, in the War Crimes Legal Section? A. I am chief clerk of the Legal section, and I deal with the photographs that come into the office. Q. Will you describe to the Court the procedure that is observed by the Legal Section in respect to the photographs that are re- ceived? A. The photographs come into the office from the Photographic Section War Crimes, and it comes to me, where I send to the J.A.A.G. (sic) London. They are developed, put on plates and returned to me. Q. Have you received a photograph in connection with the Hofuku Maru case? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you produce the original to the Court? A. Yes, sir. EX: F Original and copy of plate of photograph is handed to the Court, copy marked Exhibit "F", signed by the President, and attached to the proceedings. No further questions. No cross-examination. Prosecutor: With your permission, Sir, I would like to call Mr. Wilkinson into the box to prove this statement of the accused, which I wish to put in. PROSECUTION WITNESS - FLT./LT. WILKINSON Witness is duly affirmed. Examination-In-Chief. Q. What is your name, rank and address? A. Flt/Lt. Wilkinson, Australian War Crimes, Singapore. Q. Will you describe to the Court your duty with the War Crimes? A. I am attached to the Australian War Crimes, where I am an investigator. Q. Do you remember if you have ever investigated the case of Jotani? A. Yes. Q. Did he make a statement in the course of your investigation? A. He did. Flt. Lt. Wilkinson (cont). page (15) 28 Q. Will you see if this is your signature on the top of this document? (Witness is shown statement of accused). A. This is my signature on the top page, and also on the written statement. Q. Was the statement free and voluntarily? A. It was given quite freely and voluntarily. Q. Was there any inducement or threat shown? A. None whatsoever. Q. Was the statement read back to him after it was taken down? A. It was read back to him after practically every line I took down. And when it was fully taken, it was read back to him. Q. Did he sign this statement after that, in your presence? A. Yes. No further questions. No cross-examination. Court: Flt/Lt. Wilkinson, do you recognise the man in the dock? A: Yes, sir; he is the man I took the statement from. Examination closed. EXHIBIT G Major Srivastava the Prosecutor, reads out the statement of the accused, which is handed to the Court marked Exhibit "G", signed by the President, and attached to the proceedings. Prosecutor: I do not propose to read out the whole of the affidavits, but only the relevant portions that I have marked, but if the Defence or the Court wish it, I will read through the whole. EXHIBIT H Affidavit of Private C. Lowery, Beds & Herts. Regiment, is read to the Court and admitted in evidence as Exhibit "H", signed by the President and attached to the proceedings. EXHIBIT I Affidavit of Private G.E. Mower, Royal Norfolk Regiment, is read to the Court and admitted in evidence as Exhibit "I", signed by the President and attached to the proceedings. COURT adjourns at 12.45 p.m., till 2.30 p.m. COURT RE-ASSEMBLES EXHIBIT J Affidavit of Capt. G. Gibson, R.A., , is read out to the Court, and is marked in evidence as Exhibit J, signed by the President, and attached to the proceedings. EXHIBIT K Affidavit of Capt. P.S.W. Dean, Suffolk Regiment, is read to the Court, and is marked in evidence as Exhibit K, signed by the President, and attached to the pro- ceedings. EXHIBIT L Affidavit of Capt. N.K. Evans, Manchester Regiment, is read to the Court, and is marked in evidence as Exhibit L, signed by the President, and attached to the proceedings. 26.3.47. A.M. page (16) 29 EXHIBIT M Affidavit of Capt. J.F. Lawrence, Gordon Highlanders Regt. is read to the Court, marked in evidence as Exhibit "M", signed by the President, and attached to the proceedings. CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION IS CLOSED.
The Defence opens with the transcript and the aide memoir/ pro forma routine. The Defence Counsel puts in his address. The defendant gives his evidence and his examination is gone through. Apologies for the typesetting being askew in places. Follows: Court: S/M Jotani; the case for the Prosecution is now closed and you have now been called upon to offer your defence. Apart from any other witnesses being called in your defence, you have three alternatives. You may decline to make any statement at all, or you may make a statement not on oath, or, you may give evidence on oath. If you give evidence on oath yourself, you will be subject to cross-examination by the Prosecution; whereas,is (sic) you make a statement not on oath, you will not be questioned. However, the Court will attach more weight to any evidence which you give on oath. Is that clear? Accused. Yes, sir. Court: Do you wish to give evidence on oath? A. Yes, sir. Court: Defence Counsel, do you wish to all (sic) any witnesses to the defence? A. I have including the accused, six witnesses. Court: Are they witnesses to fact or to character - or both? A. Five witnesses are to fact, and one to character, Sir. Court: Have you prepared your opening address, Defence Counsel? A. Mr. President, on the grounds that my examination of the accused is not fully prepared, and because my opening address cannot be fully executed, I wish, if it please the Court, to apply for an adjournment until tomorrow, Sir. Prosecution: I have no objections, Sir. Court: Very well the, the Court will adjourn till tomorrow. Court adjourns at 3.20 p.m., and will re-assemble at 1000 hours tomorrow. DEFENCE ( 17 ) 30 ( pro forma completed in ink ) The accused is/ (are) asked the following questions: Do you wish to give evidence on oath? Answer Yes ( If the answer is in the negative ) - Do you wish to make a statement not on oath? Answer / Do you intend to call any witnesses in your defence? Answer Yes. Six incl accused. Are they witnesses to character only? Answer Four to fact. One to character. Counsel/ ( defending officer/accused) make (s) (no)/ the attached opening address marked "N" ( only applicable if one or more witnesses as to the facts of the case are to be called by the defence R.P.41). "N" (signed Lt. Col. H.E.R. Smith President) OPENING ADDRESS IN DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED, JOTANI KITAICHI BY MURATA KIICHI, DEFENCE COUNSEL Mr. President and Members of this Honourable Military Court:- The defence intends to bring the following facts before the Court:- 1) In the first place that it was not the responsibility of the accused to decide the allotment of the holds for accommo- dation of POWs on board. Moreover, the POWs were in fact being accommodated in three different holds, namely, Nos. 2, 4 and 5 which were all the space available. The accused complained at Singapore for the Captain of the s.s. 'HOFUKU MARU' about the lack of accommodation for the POWs, but was told that it was all that the ship had had and that the accused had to take the entire draft of 1,250 POWs on board. (2) As to the food condition, the prosecution states that the rations issued to the POWs were so small in quantity that they could not sustain their health and that such was the cause of outbreak of various diseases. Although there might have been some food which were not quite suitable to the POWs' taste, the quantity of the same remained always according tp the ration scales laid down by the Japanese Army. (3) The medical supplies were handed over to the medical officers of the POWs' when leaving the camps in Thailand. They embarked on the s.s. 'HOFUKU MARU' at Singapore with these medical supplies with them, which were supposed to be sufficient for their needs in medical treatments during the voyage. But owing to the unexpected delay of the voyage which was caused by the engine trouble at Borneo and Manila and also to the pro-longed evacuation period of the ship necessitated by severe air attacks by the Allied Forces, the medical supplies on board were almost exhausted. This is the main reason why many POWs died at Manila. - 2 - (4) At Manila the accused asked repeatedly of 200 men to be taken off, but the Japanese medical authorities came on board and would only allow the removal of 50. (5) There were approximately twenty latrines being equipped on board along the sides of the ship, though some of the affida- vits state that there were only six latrines. It is true that number of places the latrines located was only six, but at each location there were 3 or 4 'boxes' adjoining one another, thus permitting altogether 18 to 20 personnel to utilize at one time. (6) There occurred at Manila death numbering 47 among the POWs and 3 among the Korean guards, but not 98 as stated in the Charge Sheet. At first the dead were buried at cemetery in Manila, but later it became impossible on account of the ship having to anchor at such a distance of about eight miles away from the harbour due to intensification of bombing of the Allied Forces. (7) All the POWs were provided with life-jackets. At the time when the s.s. 'HOFUKU MARU' was attacked by the Allied Air Forces near Manila on September 21st, 1944, the accused in the best of his ability, took the necessary steps for the safety of the POWs. (8) The accused did beat POWs on certain occasions during the voyage, but this was done only when he considered it absolutely necessary for upkeep of discipline on board. In no occasion had he used such tools as iron crow-bar, rope or stick, as is stated in the affidavits, however. The object of the defence is, therefore, to contend that the accused is not to be held responsible for the alleged " ill-treatment of the POWs resulting in the death of about ninety-eight of them and in physical sufferings to many others", in the charge. (signed) Murata Kiichi defence counsel Jotani Kitaichi - Accused Examination in Chief The accused after being duly affirmed states:- Q. What is your name and rank? A. S/M Jotani Kitaichi. Q. Where were you working between July 1944 and Sept. 1944? A. I was working at No.2 POW Detached Camp in Thailand. Q. Did you embark on the Hofuku Maru as leader of POWs at that time? A. Yes. Q. When did the Hofuku Maru leave Singapore? A. It left Singapore on the 4th July 1944. Q. To where did the Hofuku Maru proceed then? A. It proceeded to Miri in Borneo and then to Manila. Q. For how many days did the Hofuku Maru stay at Manila? A. About 50 days. Q. What happened on the Hofuku Maru after that? A. It left Manila on the 21st Sept. and it was sunk afterwards in an aerial bombardment. Q. Was the Hofuku Maru a cargo or a passenger ship? A. It was a cargo ship. Q. Were there any cargos aboard the ship? A. Yes there were, iron ore and bauxite at the bottom of the ship. Q. Did you embark on the Hofuku Maru at Singapore as leader of POWs? A. Yes. Q. How many POWs boarded the ship at Singapore? A. About 1250. Q. What nationality? A. About 1,000 British and 250 Dutch. Q. Besides POWs were there others who boarded the Hofuku Maru? A. About 50 Japanese soldiers under the command of S/M Takahashi. Q. Anybody else? A. About 40 Korean guards under my command and about 40 out of 60 members of the crew of the Hofuku Maru. Q. How many holds were there on the Hofuku Maru? A. There were five holds. Q. Tell the Court where they were? A. Two holds on the fore part of the ship, one hold in the centre of the ship and two holds in the after part of the ship. Q. To which holds were the POWs accomodated? - 2 - Jotani Kitaichi - Examination in Chief A. In Nos. 2, 4, 5 holds. Q. What do you mean by No. 4 Hold? A. No. 4 is the very first hold in the back of the ship. Q. What do you mean by No. 5 Hold? A. That was on the extreme end part of the ship. Q. How many POWs were accomodated in each of these holds? A. About 400 POWs in each hold. Q. From whom did you receive instructions for the allocation of POWs? A. I received instructions from the commandant to accomodate them in Nos. 2, 4, 5 Holds. Q. You said the POWs were accomodated in Holds 2, 4, 5. What about No. 1 Hold? A. In No. 1 Hold were 50 Japanese soldiers under the command of S/M Takahashi and 40 Korean guards under my command. Q. Was there ample space still remaining in No. 1 Hold? A. No more space in that hold because there were some mails and cargos. Q. What about hold No. 3? A. It was full up. This hold was used for storing provisions and also part of the crew of the Hofuku Maru. Q. What were the dimensions of the holds in which you put the POWs? A. They were all of the same dimensions namely 20 metres long, 15 metres wide and 3 metres high and in two tiers. Q. Did you pay any special attention about improving the accomodation of the POWs during the voyage? A. I asked the transportation commandant and the Capt. of the ship whether the POWs could go on deck to sleep and also to have an awning put up on the deck and they were granted. Q. How about ventilation and the lighting arrangements of the holds where the POWs were accomodated? A. Each hold had two ventilators and there were many electric lights. Q. How were the provisions taken on board? A. This was done on the part of the ship. Q. By whom was the food for POWs cooked? A. It was cooked by the POWs themselves according to their wish. Q. What were the rations of the POWs per day per capita? A. I ascertained from the Capt. of the ship it was 700 to 800 grams per day per capita. Q. Do you mean 700 to 800 grams of staple food only? A. Besides this there were auxiliary foods, so much in quantity and so much in weight. Q. Did you ever see the POWs eating? A. Yes. Q. 700 to 800 grams would work out into what quantity when actually eaten by the POWs? A. Each time they would be eating about one mess tin. Q. How many times were the POWs fed a day? A. They were fed twice a day. Q. Why were they fed only twice a day? A. They preferred to be fed twice a day the same as the crew. Q. Did you pay any consideration for the improvement of the food? - 3 - (20) 33 A. Yes. Q. What did you do? A. Being requested by the POWs to issue food to suit their taste more. So I issued sugar and canned goods and also vegetables which were ordinarily stored on board for emergency use. Q. What amount of drinking water was supplied to the POWs? A. About 5 or 6 cups a day. Q. What was the size of the cup? A. A bit smaller than the glass on the table. Q. Did you pay any special attention to the drinking water for the POWs? A. Yes. At Miri, Borneo, when the water was taken on board. As I heard the water in MIri was not good I gave creosote to the POWs to purify their water. Q. Were medical supplies taken on board before starting from Singapore? A. The Medical Officer of the POWs took on board 3 boxes which were originally handed over to him when we were leaving the camp in Thailand. Q. Did the ship ever take on medical supplies after leaving Singapore? A. Yes. 5 packages of medical supplies were taken on board at Manila from the Japanese camp there. Q. Do you know what they consist of? A. I do not remember well. Q. When the medical supplies were taken on board at Manila did you go yourself to take the supplies? A. I went to the Japanese camp in Manila and I brought the supplies back myself and handed them over to the POW. MO. on the deck. Q. Do you remember if the Japanese MO. used thise supplies for the Japanese? A. No. Q. Do you remember that a request was made for lights for an operation on an appendicitis case during the voyage from Singapore to Manila? A. There was no such request. Q. Were there any sick during the voyage? A. A certain number of malaria cases happened during the voyage. Q. Did you admit about 50 serious cases into Manila hospital? A. Yes. Q. At that time how many sick were there in Manila? A. I do not remember the number well. Q. Then how did you admit 50 sick cases into Manila hospital? A. The sick cases occurred after our arrival in Manila. When I made arrangements for their admission into hospital the MO. from the Japanese Transportation Corps came on board and he confined the number to 50. Q. At how many places were the latrines situated on board? A. About six different places. Q. At which places? A. On the starboard side of the ship there were three places and on the port side there were three places, altogether about 20 seats. Q. Were there night chambers provided in the holds? A. There were five or six night chambers in each hold. Q. Did any deaths occur while the ship was in Manila? - 4 - (21) 34 Jotani Kitaichi - Examination in Chief A. Yes. Q. How many deaths occurred? A. I think 47 deaths. Q. Were all of them POWs? A. Yes. Q. No deaths on the part of the Japanese Army? A. Yes, one or two cases died. Q. Did you inform your commandant about the deaths? A. Yes, I informed Col. Sugasawa in the Thailand Camp. Q. How did you communicate with him? A. By wireless from the ship. Q. After being attacked from the air did you return to Thailand the next year? A. Yes, I returned. Q. After returning to Thailand did you see the commander of the POW Camp? A. Yes. Q. You said that you returned to Thailand Camp in Feb. the next year. Did you tell your commander of the deaths which occurred in Manila? A. Yes. Q. How did you dispose of the dead while in Manila? A. At the beginning while we were at Manila the air attacks were intensified and the ship had to anchor outside the harbour and communication with the shore was extremely difficult. So sanction was given by the Capt. for the dead to be buried at sea. Q. How far was the ship from the shore? A. We took shelter about 7 or 8 miles away from the shore. Q. Was the Hofuku Maru attacked by Allied forces on 21st Sept. 1944? A. Yes. Q. What happened then? A. The ship was sunk. Q. What steps did you take when the Hofuku Maru was about to sink? A. Through the interpreter I issued orders for all the personnel to leave the ship. Q. Were the POWs provided with life-saving apparatus? A. At the time of embarkation each POW was given a life jacket. Q. Were the life jackets carried by the POWs all the time during the voyage? A. Yes. Q. Besides life jackets were anything else provided? A. There were rafts made of wood. Q. What was the size of the raft? A. About 2 metres square. Q. How about the hatchways? A. They were opened. Q. Did you ever beat POWs during the voyage? A. Yes, for the purpose of discipline. Q. For what reason did you do so? A. Once or twice when POWs stole some clothing belonging to the crew. - 5 - (22) 35 Jotani Kitaichi - Examination in Chief A. On another occasion when the blackout was observed some POWs were caught smoking. Q. How did you beat them? A. With my bare hands I beat them on the thighs or backs. At 3.00 pm the Court adjourns. At 3.10 pm the Court reassembles. Jotani Kitaichi - Examination in Chief Q. You have just said that you slapped POWs in the thighs but the affidavits state you beat them with poles. Is this true? A. Absolutely not. No more questions by defence. Jotani Kitaichi - Cross Examination Q. Did you conduct the POWs from Chungkai Camp to Singapore? A. Yes, I brought them down. Q. Then you were the draft commander of the POWs who came to Singapore? A. No. Q. Who was in charge of the POWs that were brought to Singapore? A. Lt. Eino was present. Q. Who was responsible for the POWs from the camp down to Singapore? A. When they transported by train the senior officer of each carriage was responsible for them. Q. When you started from Siam with the POWs were you given any special instructions from the camp in respect of the POWs? A. I received instructions to take the POWs down to Singapore. Q. Who gave you the instructions? A. The commandant of No. 2 Branch of Thailand POW Camp. Q. Will you tell the Court of the instructions you received from this Branch commandant in respect of POWs? A. I received instructions to take the POWs down to Singapore and from Singapore I received instructions to take them to Japan. Q. Did you receive instructions at the camp or at Singapore regarding the taking of POWs from Singapore to Japan? A. It was at the time I started from the camp. Q. What time did you take from the camp to Singapore? A. I do not remember the time distinctly but I think it was about 4 days. Q. What approximately was the time of journey by ship from Singapore to Japan? A. We sailed on the 4th July and the ship was sunk on 21st September. We arrived on 25th Sept. at Formosa. Q. How much time would you take from Singapore to Japan by ship? A. I do not know very well. Q. Did you know when you started from Chungkai Camp that you were going on the Hofuku Maru? A. I did not know. - 6 - (23) 36 Jotani Kitaichi - Cross Examination Q. You did not know the time the ship was to start from Singapore? A. On the day before embarkation I knew the ship was the Hofuku Maru. Q. My question is " You did not know the time when the ship was to start from Singapore? Court: In any Army, whether it was Spanish, American, English or Japanese, there must be military security. How could the accused know? Prosecution: I want to bring out the question of responsibility and I should like the accused to say whether he did or did not know. If he knew the question of responsibility would different (sic). If he did not know, it would again be different. So if he did not know I want him to say that he did not know. A. I did not know. ( this line inserted in typrescript in handwriting) Q. Whatever supplies that you took from Chungkai Camp to Singapore were for use on the journey from Siam to Singapore you did not know when you were sailing from Singapore? A. The medical officer of the POWs received the medical supplies and so I did not know about it. Q. Do you know that these supplies were lost on the way to Singapore? A. No, they did not. Q. You stated that Hofuku Maru was a cargo ship. Apart from the ship's commandant what was the staff of the ship? A. I think there were 60 to 70 men. Q. But the ship's commandant was the only senior officer? A. The ship's commandant was the Capt. Q. Apart from the ship's commandant who was the Capt. of the ship there was no other officer attached to the ship. Is that right? A. No. Q. What was the name of the ship's commandant? A. S/M Takahashi. Q. As the ship's commandant can you tell me what was Takahashi's responsibility on board the Hofuku Naru? A. He was the commandant of all Japanese troops on board. Q. The ship's commandant had no direct responsibility for the POWs? A. Yes. Q. The ship's commandant was only responsible for the safety of the ship and its crew? Court: You are confusing the witness very much indeed. You are referring to the ship's commandant as two persons. Will you refer to O/C Troops who was S/M Takahashi and do not refer to the ship's commandant at all? The other person concerned was the Capt. of the ship. It is a question of the difficulty of translation. The ship's commandant and the Capt. of the ship are two different persons. Q. What was the name of the Capt. of the ship? A. I think it was Shibata. Q. Do you know when you arrived in Singapore and boarded the Hofuku Maru that S/M Takahashi was already on board? A. He was on board. - 7 - (24) 37 Q. When you arrived in Singapore and boarded the Hofuku Maru you contacted the ship's commandant for the accomodation on the ship? A. I received S/M Takahashi's instructions when I went to the ship. Q. You stated in your statement which you made in the course of the investigation that you saw the Capt. of the ship and he told you that all the holds were available and that you were to allot so many POWs to each hold? A. I received the instructions from the ship's commandant. Q. So when you boarded the ship you did not official contact (sic) S/M Takahashi and receive instructions fronm him? A. When I came on board I saw S/M Takahashi and received his instructions. Q. Who gave you the instructions? A. S/M Takahashi gave me instructions to use the holds. Q. You supervised the embarkation of the POWs into the holds. Is that right? A. Yes. Q. You allotted to each hold the number of POWs that were to live there in the hold? A. I gave instructions to the senior officer of the POWs as to how many men were to be accomodated for each hold. Q. Who decided as to how many POWs were to be put into each hold? A. I did that. Q. After the ship left who was responsible for the POWs? A. I was. Q. When you started from Singapore did you satisfy yourself about the food or the medical supplies aboard the ship? A. I was satisfied. Q. How did you satisfy yourself? A. It was done by medical supplies at Manila and by giving emergency provisions and furthermore by conferring with the Capt. about certain facilities. Q. When you started from Singapore you said you were satisfied about the rations and the medical supplies. How did you satisfy yourself? A. I tried my best. Q. My question is not answered? Court: Your question was not understood. I will put the question. You have said that you were responsible for the POWs on board. Did you satisfy yourself before the ship left Singapore that there were adequate rations on board the ship? A: I think I was satisfied, sir. Prosecution: How did he satisfy himself? Court: The Court clearly understand what you are trying to get at. Will you split your questions up. He has now said he was satisfied that the rations on board were adequate. It is now up to you to find out how he was satisfied. Q. What inquiries did you make to satisfy yourself that there were sufficient rations on board? A. As the food was received from the ship I think there were no complaints. Q. You have stated that you satisfied yourself that there were enough rations on board. How did you know that? A. I personally saw them eating. - 8 - (25) 38 Jotani Kitaichi - Cross Examination Q. When the ship started from Singapore it carried rations for the whole journey. Is that right? A. Medical supplies were brought down from the camp but the food on board the ship was loaded by the ship. Q. In the course of the journey did you know there were enough rations for the POWs on board the ship? A. I did not know very well. Q. Did you know that there were enough medical supplies on board the ship apart from the supplies that the POWs brought? A. The medical supplies were brought on board at Manila so I thought they were enough. Q. No supplies were taken at Singapore in that case? A. The medical supplies brought down from Siam were loaded on board the ship. Q. As far as you know there were no other medical supplies on board? A. Inside the ship there were medical supplies. Q. Was there any Japanese MO. on board? A. No. Q. You have stated that in No.2 and No.4 and No.5 Holds you divided the POWs and in No.3 Hold were the crew and provisions and in No.1 Hold there were 90 Japanese. Was there any hospital accomodation for POWs anywhere on the ship? A. No, there was no hospital. Q. So if any POW fell sick he was left in his hold? A. Yes. Q. During the course of the voyage when POWs fell sick was there hospital accomodation provided? A. On board there was no hospital. Q. When you were in Manila Bay and the POWs fell sick did you provide any hospital accomodation? A. There was no hospital inside the ship. Q. Is it not a fact that when POWs fell sick a part of No.4 Hold was allowed as a hospital? A. I do not recollect very well. Q. Do you know how many sick were on board the ship in Manila Bay? A. I do not recollect very well. Q. You have stated that 50 cases were evacuated by the Japanese. You did not know how many sick personnel were left on the ship? A. Those who were to be hospitalised were all taken ashore but there were a few cases of malaria left on the ship. Q. You have stated that you went ashore and brought medical supplies. How did you know how much medical supplies you had to bring? A. I asked the POW MO. to write out the necessary medical supplies needed for 60 days and I received the supplies according to this order. Q. How many POWs according to your knowledge died on board the ship? A. 47 POWs. Q. Were any operations carried out on board? A. Yes. Q. How many? A. I have forgotten the exact number. Q. Where were the operations carried out? A. They were carried out in No.5 Hold. - 9 - (26) 39 Jotani Kitaichi - Cross Examination Q. When you started from Singapore did you know if any fresh rations were taken on board the ship? A. I did not see the fresh rations being loaded on board. Q. Did you inspect the holds on the voyage? A. Yes. Q. You inspected them yourself alone? A. Yes. Q. Takahashi never inspected the holds? A. I inspected the POWs. Q. Takahashi never inspected the holds or the meals. Is that right? A. I never saw Takahashi inspecting them. Q. Between Singapore and Manila Bay or in Manila Bay were any dry rations received on board the ship? A. There were rations. Q. Did you obtain rice or any dry rations at Miri or Manila Bay? A. I received at Manila Bay. Q. What did you receive at Manila? A. I received it myself but I never saw members of the crew receiving it. Q. Was that for the crew or for the POWs? A. I think it was for members of the crew and also the other personnel on board. Q. But you did not know whether it was fresh or dry rations? A. I saw fresh food brought on board also. Q. You have seen for yourself the fresh food or any rations that might have been brought on board the ship? A. I saw them bring it on board. Q. Did you inspect them? A. I stood by while they were loading but I did not inspect. Q. Was the ship marked in any way to show that it carried POWs? A. No. Q. Did you issue any instructions to the personnel what to do in case of the ship being bombed? A. I did. Q. What did you do? A. I gave orders through the interpreter that everybody should leave the ship. Q. Did you make any special arrangements for the evacuation of the sick that were on board in case the ship was bombed? A. As I gave orders to everybody on board to leave the ship and as I was throwing the rafts overboard it was impossible for me to do anything for them. Q. Did you make any arrangements to evacuate the sick in case the ship was bombed? A. I gave instructions to everybody. Q. Apart from instructions were any arrangements made? A. I threw them rafts and hatch doors. Q. When the ship was bombed you gave the order for all men to go overboard? A. The Capt. first gave orders to leave the ship and I gave it after him. Q. To your knowledge in the course of the voyage did S/M Takahashi ever issue any instructions to the POWs directly? - 10 - (27) 40 Jotani Kitaichi - Cross Examination A. He did not directly. Q. How did he do so indirectly then? A. He gave orders to me and I gave them to the POWs. No more questions by the Prosecution. No Re-Examination. Jotani Kitaichi - Questions by the Court Q. Did you get any warning on the 21st Sept. that the convoy of which the Hofuku Maru formed a part was going to be attacked from the air that morning? A. I never heard of anything. Q. You said during the course of your Examination in Chief that No.4 Hold was the first hold in the back of the ship and you said that No.5 Hold was in the extreme after part of the ship. Will you make that clear? A. The holds were arranged as follows - On the front of the ship there were Hold No.1 and Hold No.2, in the centre of the ship was Hold No.3. In the after deck there were Holds Nos. 4 and 5. Q. You have implied in your answers that you were not responsible for the daily issue of rations to POWs? A. I had the responsibility to see that the POWs received the rations on the ship and we received the rations from the ship. Q. Were you responsible for the issue of rations from the rations store in the ship to the POWs? I will help you. What did Civ. Shikagi do on board the ship? A. He was concerned with all the rations we received. Q. Were you responsible for the supervision of Shigaki's work? A. No. Q. How were rations issued to POWs? Was it daily or were they given rations for the voyage in bulk? A. They were issued daily. Q. Now you have also said during your Examination in Chief that you issued canned food and vegetables which were stored for emergency use. How do you reconcile that with the evidence you have just given? A. The POWs made a request for food to suit their taste. I conferred with the Capt. but was rejected and as a consequence I gave them emergency food. Q. Where did you get this emergency food? A. This emergency food was loaded at Singapore. Q. By POWs? A. A Quatermaster officer and Japanese troops loaded them. Q. Was it for consumption by the POWs or Japanese troops? A. This emergency food was to be consumed after arriving in Japan in case there was a shortage at that time. Q. Were the POWs fit and healthy when they left Chungkai Camp? A. They were healthy. Q. You said that in Manila Bay those sick men who were to be - 11 - (28) 41 Jotani Kitaichi - Questions by the Court. Q. hospitalised were taken ashore and only a few were left on the ship? A. Light cases of malaria were left on board. Q. How many? A. I do not recollect very well? Q. You said about 50 sick men were taken off the ship? A. Yes. Q. You also said that you went ashore at Manila and you tried to get the Japanese medical authorities to try and take 200 men off the ship? A. I did not say that. Q. Did you ever go to No.3 Hold when Shigaki was issuing rations to the POWs? A. Rationed food was always received at the cookhouse. Q. You said that you knew that you were embarking on the Hofuku Maru on the day before embarkation? A. Yes. Q. Was that on the 3rd JUly? A. I got on board the ship on 27th June and sailed on 4th July. Q. Did you visit the ship before 27th June? A. I embarked on the Hofuku Maru on the 27th June. Q. Did you visit the ship before you actually embarked? A. I went on the ship on the 26th June. Q. Who did you see? A. I saw the Capt. Q. Did you see S/M Takahashi? A. I did. Q. What did he say? A. He just said that he wished for my health during the voyage. Q. Did you discuss the accomodation of the POWs with either S/M Takahashi or the Capt. of the ship on that occasion? A. I heard that we were to embark on the ship about sometime tomorrow. I also heard the news from the shore authorities also. Q. Was there a ration scale laid down for POWs whilst they were on the ship? A. I heard this from the Capt. Q. You have said that the POWs drew 700 to 800 grams of rice per head daily? A. I heard this from the ship's Capt. Q. Did you keep a record of the names of POWs who died in Manila Bay? A. I had the record of the names of POWs that died on board and also their doctor's death certificates, but I lost them at the time of the sinking. No more questions by the Court. At 12.40 pm, the Court adjourns until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The next defence witness appears to give some expert evidence about shipping matters and the IJA 3rd Transportation Command. Typesetting a trifle strange here: apologies. GP page (29) 42 At 1015 hours on 28th March 1947, the Court re-assembles pursuant to adjournment. Present, the same President and members DEFENCE WITNESS - LT.COL. NAITO SHINICHI. Witness makes a solemn declaration. Examination-In-Chief. Q. Will you please give your name and rank? A. Lt.Colonel Naito Shinichi. Q. In the period of June till September 1944,, what duties were you engaged in? A. I was a member of the staff attached to the 3rd Transportation Authorities at Singapore. Q. What kind of connection did this 3rd Transportation shipping Authorities have over the transport of ships? A. On the transport ships which were engaged in the transportation between Japan and the South Seas, the shipping authorities at Singapore were under the orders of the General Headquarters of the Shipping Transportation Authorities which were located at Ujina. Q. Do you now the Hofuku Maru, which is named in this case? A. I have seen the Hofuku Maru, but at present I have no recol- lection of what the Hofuku Maru was; but in my general idea, I think it was a cargo vessel of about 6000 tons. Q. Then will you please give the Court what is left in your re- collection of the fixtures on board the Hofuku Maru? A. In the construction and the fixtures fot this transport ship, they were used for transporting troops and it was done in the following way; in my recollection, the Hofuku Maru was also done in the same way. Firstly, I will state the accomodation (sic) facilities; in general, on these 6000 ton class troop trans- port ships, troop accomodations were made inside the hold by erecting bunk tiers. In general, the inside decks of the ships were about nine feet high and made into two tiers. Secondly, I wish to state the life-preserving appliances were very few - from three to four boats. And these boats were ori- ginally used for patients and liaison purposes. For the troops on board there were enough appliances arranged for this purpose. And the number of life-saving jackets were arranged according to the largest number of personnel aboard the ship. Thirdly, I would like to state about the ventilation and lighting con- ditions. In the ventilation facilities, there were in each hold of the ship, originally, two ventilators. Apart from these ven- tilators there was also temporary ventilation-chutes which were arranged two to each hold, and these chutes were made of canvas. Apart from these ventilating systems, the entrance of the holds and the top pf the holds were kept open to let in ventilation. In the lighting system in these holds there were to be lighted bulbs fixed in each hold. Above this, the daylight was brought in by opening the top of the hatches. Fourthly, I would like to state about the water-supply - Q. My question is about the fixtures of the ship and not the water- supply. A. Fourthly, I would like to talk about the sanitation facilities. On the cargo ships, originally latrines were very few. These latrines are usually not fixed inside the holds; for the troops which were accomodated on board these ships, temporary latrines were slung outside the ship, and fixed in some ways on the decks. Page ....(30) 43 Lt.Col. Naito (contd). A( contd): Apart from this, on transport vessels there were night- chambers also. Q. How were the cooking facilities on board the ship? A. On the cargo vessel the cooking facilities are also ordinarly (sic), very inadequate. In my opinion, on the 6000 vessel orginarly (sic), there was about 5 or 6 steam cooking heaters arranged. Q. About these fixtures you have just related, where is this planned and where is it executed, and who is responsible for the execution and construction on board the vessel? A. This construction is all done by the responsibility of the GHQ., at Ujina. Q. Then, how were the food provisions on these transport vessels supplied? A. On these transport vessels which were used on the voyage from Japan to the South Seas, when they sailed from Ujina, GHQ of the Shipping Authorities gave provisions to these ships for the out- ward voyage and the voyage back. Q. What kind of provisions were you supplied at Ujina H.Q. ? A. Generally speaking, half-polished rice, canned goods, dried vege- tables, fresh meat and fresh vegetables were supplied at Ujina. Q. Then, what kind of provisions were supplied at the port the vessel stopped at? A. On the cargo ship, the ice-storage is very poor and as a conse- quence, fresh meat and fresh vegetables are in the main got at these ports. Q. Under what regulations were the food rations made on these tran- port ships, and under whose responsibility was it carried out? A. The food rations on these transport vessels were according to Army Regulations' scale, and these rations were the responsibility of the Captain of the vessels. Q. Then, according to these Army Regulation rations, what is the amount of the rations given on board these vessels? A. In my opinion, the food ration on board these vessels according to Army Ragulations scale was main food, that is rice - 7/800 grammes, and subsidiary foods - 7/800 grammes. Q. Do you know for what purposes these vessels were used on its out- ward voyages from Japan to the South? A. To my recollection, I think this vessel was used on its outward voyage for transporting Japanese troops to the South. Q. On board these transport ships was there any difference on the ration of food and medical supplies between Japanese troops and p.o.ws.? A. There was no difference, it was all the same. Q. When a transport vessel is on its voyage or in port, in what way did it take reuge in case of air attacks? A. The refuge of these ships was accordingly done between the Army and Navy which took place between GHQ Tokio, and even the Army trans- port is to take refuge under the command of the Navy commandant. Q. Does the witness know the war conditions in Manila in August and September 1944 - and if you know, will you please give a brief account? A. August & September was just before the campaign started at Leyte islands, and as a consequence it was very intensified against the enemy attacks. Especially on the 21st September there was a large air attack at Manila; and during this great air-attack by the Al- ied Forces on Manila, Japanese vessels of the Army and Navy tot- alling 200,000 tons was sunk around Manila. During this period also the Allied Air-forces reconnaisance (sic) were almost of daily occurence. And to my recollection, the reuge of these transports Col. Naito (contd). Page........(31) 44. A(contd): in Manila bay was done in large scale and continuously. Q. Did the Army shipping authorities, in order to satisfy the p.o.ws., take any measures towards them? A. Not just for the p.o.w., but the transportation authorities tried to improve in general, the transportation system and as a conse- quence, the accomodation for the p.o.ws., was also improved. And in my opinion, according to the Japanese Military Authority at that time, and according to war conditions which were prevailing, I think that was about all the Japanese could do about this prob- lem. Q. During this time, will you give an account of the authority on these transport ships? Especially between the ship's captain and transport command, and the draft officer? A. I will first state the connection of the Transport Commandant and the Draft Commdt; the draft commander, at the period of embar- kation comes under the directions of the transport commandant. As a consequence all the orders are executed according to the transport commandant. And next is the authority of the ship's captain and the transport commdt, which are in the same position generally; but as the Ship's captain has the actual knowledge of the ship and the transport commdt is a fresh hand about the ship, he has to take orders or directions from the ship's captain. And in crossing these very dangerous waters, the ship's captain cannot always receive orders from the Transport Commdt., because the capt. has to take care of his own ship. NO further questions. CROSS-EXAMINATION. Q. No.3 Army Transport shipping (Company) Command at Singapore was a Branch of Ujina Headquarters ? A. The 3rd shipping transportation authorities at Singapore is a unit under the GHQ at Ujina. Q. This No.3 ATC is divided into various sections, say medical section, transport section, etc., - is that right ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, in which of these sections were you employed? A. I was a staff-officer. Q. But were you a staff-officer of the 3rd ATC ? A. I am a staff-officer, Sir. Q. You have said that 3rd Army Transport Command is a Branch command at Singapore and it is divided into various sections. Now were you in the Branch Command Office or were you in the transport section ? A. There were no staff officers attached to these various sections, and the duties applied in general to all these sections. Q. Did you in the course of your duties at the Transport command, inspect the ships that came into singapore (sic) ? A. I did not do it continuously, but I did it occasionally. Q. Did you inspect the ship Hofuku Maru about early July 1944, before it left Singapore? A. I have not a very distinct recollection of when I saw the Hofuku Maru. Q. Orders regarding movement of troops was submitted to Ujina H.Q. ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it was the duty of No.3 ATC to make detailed arrangements for accomodation on the ship? Col. Naito (contd). page.......(32) 45. A. It is as follows: the vessels engaged on the voyage between Japan and the South are under the orders of the Ujina GHQ. On board these vessels, the planning, the fixtures, the arrangements and the supplies were all planned and done under the responsibility of the GHQ at Ujina. Q. My question is that when the order is received from Ujina for move- ment of certain troops from Singapore, then the Branch command would make detailed plans for the accomodation etc., for these troops at Singapore. A. When the Singapore authorities received the orders from Ujina, or if it received requisition from the Captain of the vessel it was done as follows: the shipping authorities at Singapore were responsible for shipping, medical supplies, providing water pro- viding coal and also the issue of general necessities on the vessel. Q. Have you any personal knowledge that you speak of, medical supplies, etc., were issued to the Hofuku Maru ? A. I have not a very distinct recollection, Sir; that which I stated before applies only in case the cargo vessels were changed into troop transports. Q. Do you know if there was any scale of rations laid down for p.o.ws. and Japanese soldiers ? A. General accomodation of the personnel on the vessel was done accor- ding to the space on board the vessels at that time and according to the period it would take for transportation, and as a conse- quence there was no general scale. No further questions. No re-examination. QUESTIONS BY THE COURT Q. You have just said that the scale of accomodation and rations on each ship was decided when you knew how many persons were to be embarked on that ship. If you were carrying Japanese troops, or told you were to carry Japanese troops, what space would you allot to each man ? A. The number of personnel which are taken on board the vessel are done according to its former accomodation and also accord- ing to the distance to travel - if it is near or far. As a consequence I caanot state how many Japanese troops were al- lotted to each ship. Q. Assume the vessel to be 6000 tons and assume that it was making a direct trip from Singapore to Japan via Manila; and assume that it had to carry about 1400 personnel. Would that be a reasonable assumption, that the ship could carry 1400 personnel ? A. I think it is adequate in general, Sir. Q. When ships were carrying p.o.ws. were they marked in any way to show that they were carrying p.o.ws. ? A. No, sir. Q. From your answers, it would appear that when it was required to transport troops or p.o.ws. or any other personnel from Singapore to Japan or Manila, that your H.Q. received orders for such movement from Ujina in Japan. Would it not be correct to say you received such orders from the Military H.Q., in Singapore and that if necessary, Ujina would make the ships available ? A. It is wrong, Sir, to receive the orders from the Military Headquarters in Singapore. No further questions.
Three more Japanese officers add their expertise as to shipping, medical, and POW liaison matters. The last witness is given formal advice on the question of whether he might incriminate himself and the option open to him not to answer questions. As follows: 28. 3. 47. A.M. page (33).......46 DEFENCE WITNESS - COLONEL YOSHIDA Witness makes a solemn declaration. Examination-In-Chief. Q. What is your name and rank? A. My name is Yoshida Agi, rank Colonel. Q. During the period June till August 1944, what duties were you engaged in ? A. Till the end of June 1944 I was engaged in duties as a commanding officer with the Branch Office of No.1 transportation authorities, which was located at Ujina; towards the middle of July I was tran- sferred to the 3rd Transportation Authorities at Singapore as a Branch Commanding Officer of the Malaya Transportation section. Q. Do you know the vessel Hofuku Maru ? A. While I was on duty at Ujina I had seen the vessel. This ship is about 6000 tons and in my recollection during the period of about March to April, this ship sailed from Ujina with Japanese troops on board to the South. Q. Where, and under whose responsibility was the fixtures on board the Hafuku (sic) Maru executed ? A. The Hofuku Maru is a vessel belong (sic) to the GHQ of the transport- ation authorities at Ujina; and as a consequence, the rigging and the fixtures on board the same vessel was done under the responsibility and planned at the General H.Q., at Ujina. Q. Will you please give a brief account of the Hofuku Maru, which is in your recollection ? A. President: Before you do that, Major Srivastava, if at any time you do not wish to challenge any of the evidence which is being led by the Defence Counsel, will you please say so. In the opinion of the Court, the evidence of this witness (taken) is identical with that of the last ( is identical.) Prosecutor: The evidence that is being led has very little or no bearing at all on the issue in question, but as I thought something valuable might have come out of this, I did not say anything. President: If there is any evidence that you do not wish to challenge, will you say so and it will help the defence. Prosecutor: I wish the Defence counsel be told that what is in point, or in issue, is the illtreatment, or the accomodation and food supplies. What the witness has said later on, the construction of the ships in general and their chain of indents has actually no bearing in the case and is ir- relevant. If the witness was present when the ship sailed at the time of embarkation from Singapore, and if he had looked it over then, then only should it be taken into consideration. President: Well, the evidence is not irrelevant, but unnecessary. Defence : The Defence wishes to give a direct idea of how the vessels were fixed at Ujina, and as to where the last witness just gave general ideas, this witness himself indulged in the planning and rigging at Ujina. President: That is quite alright, Defence Counsel; but I have just asked the Prosecutor, if he does not wish to challenge any of the evidence, he may say so; you may then assume that your evidence is established. Defence : I understand, Sir. Col. Yoshida (contd). page...(34) 47 Q: You said, you saw the Hofuku Maru yourself at Ujina, but will you please give a general idea on what the general construction of the holds were of the Hofuku Maru? A: As to the Hofuku Maru, I have no distinct recollection as to its dimensions at present, but I will give the dimensions as that of a six-thousand freighter (sic). In the way of troop accomo- dations and accomodation of personnel, the bunk tiers were constructed on the inside deck of the holds. When the height of the inside deck is nine feet, bunk tiers are constructed inside these holds and as the Hofuku Maru was over nine feet high, there were two tiers constructed. The size of the holds in this class of vessel are generally 20 feet long - President: Defence Counsel, I do not want to onterfere with your defence in any way and I don't want to confuse you, but I want to point out that we have already had evi- dence of that nature from Jotani himself, as to the size of the holds - how the holds were constructed. That is not challenged by the Prosecution, but I don't see any reason why this should come up again. Defence: I have no further questions to make, Sir. No re-examination. QUESTIONS BY THE COURT Q: Colonel Yoshida, you said that in March or April, the Hofuku Maru moved south carrying troops. Can you remember on that particular occasion how many troops she carried ? A: I have no recollection as to how many troops she carried, Sir. Q: When these small vessels (carry) carried troops, did they usually carry cargoes ? A: At the very bottom of the holds, cagoes (sic) were allotted and above these cargoes on the middle decks, personnel were allotted. Q: Do you wish to put a question through the Court relating to the last two questions I have asked, Defence ? Defence: No, sir. Examination closed. DEFENCE WITNESS - CAPTAIN MASAO Witness makes a solemn declaration. Q: What is your name and rank ? A: My name is Kita Masao, I am Captain of the Medical Corps. Q: Will you give a brief statement on your record as a Doctor ? A: In March 1936 I graduated from the Medical Dept. of the Kuishi Imperial University. After graduating, I stayed in the hospital and I specially studied about beri-beri and studied about blood. , getting a degree of Medical Doctor from these studies. During the war I was on duty with the Japanese Army for four years at Singapore. During that period I cured many patients and also studied malaria. Q: During the period June till September 1944, in what duties were you engaged ? A: I was a Medical Officer attached to the Malaya Branch of the 3rd Transportation authorities. Captain Masao (contd). Page...(35) 48 Q: Will you please, in brief, give the connection between beri- beri and food rations ? A: Beri-beri is caused by great shortages of vitamin B inside the body and also affected by the climatic conditions. Q: In this case, on board the transport Hofuku Maru there were many cases of beri-beri; will you please give the causes of those cases of beri-beri from your technical point of view as a medical doctor ? A: For beri-beri to take place in the human being it takes three months, and according to this fact the British Medical Authorities have agreed also; beri-beri and rice-eaters have a very intimate connection and as the Japanese troops eat rice, they are very cautious towards beri-beri. On board the ship any prevention of beri-beri, unpolished rice, beans, vegetables, meat and other supplies were given in order to prevent this. The rations of the p.o.ws. were also the same. And as to the cases of beri-beri which occurred on the Hofuku Maru, from my standpoint, I think their physical condition had much to do with the cause. Especially from the medical standpoint, precautions have to be taken in the early stages of beri-beri, at the time of embarkation or in case malaria occurred, or if vitamin B-1 was insufficient; also in case of sea-sickness and diaorrhea or internal disorders, and any other causes where vitamin B-1 is insufficient. And even if the necessary foods contain vitamin B-1 are taken, it will not help cases of beri-beri. In my opinion the food which was pro- vided on the vessel was adequate in the way of preventing beri- beri, but on the other hand the period in which these cases of beri-beri were caused was insufficient and I think it was caused by the various conditions prevailing on the voyage. Prosecutor: The witness has never stated so far, that he was the medical officer on board, or that he inspected the p.o.ws., neither has he stated that he inspected the conditions on the ship. President: But he has stated that he is a medical officer and was attached to the staff of No.3 Transportation Command, medical section. You can deal with that in your cross- examination. Prosecutor: Yes; but as an expert he can only say what caused the beri-beri or what it was due to. President: That is agreed; but this officer was on the branch of Transportation, and that he dealt with the transportation of these p.o.ws. Prosecutor: But he says he never dealt with these prisoners-of-war. Defence: Mr. President, I wish to give to the witness the general points concerned, that is the medical standpoint, and those points which are irrelevant in this case with the ship, I will not question him on. President: Defence Counsel, the Prosecution is not attacking your methods of what he was saying, but that (he) you had not es- tablished the relationship of the witness as the medical officer of 3rd Transport Branch to the Hofuku Maru. Q: Did you have any connection with the medical supplies to the Hofuku Maru ? A: No, sir. Q: In this case, there were cases of pellagra on board the ship. From your medical point of view will you give the causes of pellagra ? A: Pellagra is caused by the shortages of some essential factors of Vitamin B-2 inside the body. But ordinarily, pellagra is a chronic disease and does not occur unless corn is eaten. As to the food Masao (contd). page...(36) 49 A(contd). which was rationed on board the ship, I don't think that pellagra could have occurred. No further questions. CROSS-EXAMINATION Q: Did you, as a medical officer, inspect this ship the Hofuku Maru before it sailed from Singapore ? A: The sanitary conditions on board the vessel are the responsi- bility of the ship's captain. Q: My question is, have you inspected the ship Hofuku Maru, or not ? A: I did, sir; this was in case the sanitary conditions were bad it would affect the troops who were getting on board and so I voluntarily visited it. Q: On what date did you visit this ship, the Hofuku Maru ? A: I did not recollect the exact date, but I think it was a day before sailing - or the day before that. Q: Did you also medically examine all the p.o.ws. that travelled on the ship ? A: I have no duties of that kind, Sir. Q: So, you did not examine the p.o.ws. that travelled on the ship ? A: As I had no duties to do with that, sir, I did not. Q: Before the personnel are embarked on the ship, under medical regulations they are medically examined and declared fit. Is that right ? A: All the medical orders are made by Ujina, GHQ, sir. Q: My question is, you as a medical officer - do you jknow that before the troops are embarked on a ship, they are medically examined and declared fit ? A: I have no duties to inspect the health of those getting on board ship; that is the duty of the medical officer of the unit boarding the ship. Q: So the personnel, before they board a ship are medically ex- amined and declared fit ? A: The troops are medically examined before they embark on the ship. Q: And if they are unfit to travel, they will not be allowed to go aboard the ship ? A: That is of course, according to the unit boarding the ship, they would not be allowed, sir. No further questions. Re-examination, declined. Q: Mr. President, I would like to add two more questions in my examination-in-chief. President: You should confine your re-examination (in relation) to any ambiguity raised by the Prosecution. If you have any other questions to put, I will allow you do so, (sic) after the Court examination, / as questions / through the Court (only). QUESTIONS BY THE COURT Q: Captain Masao, was a Japanese medical officer normally carried on the staff of a Japanese troop ship ? A: The medical officer is an assistant to the Transport commdt, sir. Q: You say that you inspected the Hofuku Maru on the day before she sailed, or the day before that. Is that so ? A: I inspected the sanitary conditions, Sir. Captain Masao (contd). Page...(37) 50 Q: Was that before the passengers embarked on the ship, or afterwards ? A: It was before the personnel got on board. Q: So that the ship was empty when you inspected ? A: It was empty, Sir. Q: Can you describe the ship to the Court ? A: I don't know it in detail, Sir. Q: What are the visual symptons of pellagra ? A: The skin diseases are the main symptons, sir. Q: What is the incubation period of pellagra ? A: It takes about half-a-year, Sir. President: Defence, do you wish to put a question through the Court ? Defence: Yes, sir. Q: During the course of voyage on this ship, malaria occurred; according to your point of view as a medical officer, can malaria be caused by the food rations on board the ship, and other ways ? Court: I think we will leave that question for the decision of the Court; that is within the knowledge of the Court. But still, you may ask the witness to answer that question. A: In my experience, this malaria which is caused inside the ship are not new malaria cases, but that which is repeated. Malaria when treated with quinine gives a fever which rages from three to four days and in 50/60% of these cases, there are recurrences; and even if ordinary rations are taken, these cases of malaria occasionally occur, from my experience. Q: In the transportation of troops and also of p.o.ws., wqhat are the main reasons which causes deterioration of sanitary con- ditions ? A: This is due to the contagious diseases which occur on the ship, and also to the medical treatment that is given; also if the period of the voyage is very long, the conditions are such that there is physical breakdown by fatigue, and the resistance to disease is low. The state of the ship's sanitary conditions is the responsibility of the ship's captain, but in cases where..... President: That is a matter of opinion. Q: My question is not to the responsibility, but to the causes of these medical diseases. A: The most important causes are owing to the long course of the voyage; those on board are physically and mentally fatigued, according to the unfamiliar route of the vessel, and by this the causes of the disease are brought forward. In the course of the voyage from Japan to Singapore........ Q: My question is pertaining to that of the causes of diseases and you are not answering in accordance with my questions; I also wish to have these questions answered briefly. A: When the voyage is prolonged for three months say, there were many sicknesses occurring on board the ship. And in my opinion, in the course of a voyage from Singapore to Japan all the p.o.ws. on the ship had many sicknesses, and I think it would be the cause of the same occurrence. No further questions. 28.3.47 A.M. Page..(38) 51 DEFENCE WITNESS - CAPTAIN TAKAKI Witness makes a solemn declaration. Examination-In-Chief Q: What is your name and rank? A: My name is Takaki Hiroshi, rank Captain. Q: From June till September 1944, what duties were you engaged in ? A: I was a member of the staff of the Siam P.O.W. camp. Q: When the p.o.ws. were to be transferred from the camp to Japan, in what way were the medical supplies rationed to them ? A: According to transportation regulations of the Army p.o.w. camps, these medical supplies were given from the medical office of the Japanese to the M.O. of the p.o.ws. Q: What were the contents of those medical supplies which were given out according to Transportation regulations ? A: The Medical officer at the p.o.ws. camp received it. I do not know the contents of it. Q: According to the transferring regulations of the p.o.ws. camp, when the p.o.ws. were transferred to Japan, how many days ration of medical supplies were they given ? A: About 40 days medical supply ration. Q: In July 1944, when the p.o.ws. were embarked on the Hofuku Maru, were you in Singapore ? A: I was in Singapore. Q: Were you present when the p.o.ws. embarked on the Hofuku Maru ? A: I was present. Q: At that time, in your position as liaison officer, did you in- spect the medical supplies ? A: I saw the medecine, but I did not inspect it. Q: When you saw it, did the p.o.ws. have the medical supplies ? A: I saw them having three boxes of medecine. No further questions. CROSS-EXAMINATION Q: When the p.o.ws. left the camp in Siam, you were present in the camp, were you ? A: No, I was not present because I was attached to the main camp. Q: Then how did you know that the medical supplies were issued to the p.o.ws., when they started out ? A: It is because I saw three boxes at Singapore. Q: When did you leave Siam for Singapore. A: June 8th, sir. Q: That was before the p.o.ws. left the camp ? A: I think it was afterwards, sir. Q: When you came to Singapore, were you still a member of the Siam p.o.w. camp staff ? A: Yes, sir. Q: Were you in any way connected with the p.o.w. drafts that came to Singapore for Japan ? Court: If the witness considers the answer he may make might in- criminate him, he may ask the Court the privilege whether he should answer the question or not. Capt. Takaki (contd). Page....(39) 52 Q: You have stated in your examination-in-chief that you were present when the Hofuku Maru was being embarked. In what connection did you come to Singapore from Siam ? A: I came from the main p.o.w. camp in Siam as a liaison officer to Singapore shipping authorities, and also the other units which were in Singapore and also for liaison with the Draft commdt. of the p.o.ws., and to see that the liaison was affected smoothly. Q: In what capacity were you present at the time of embarkation. (sic) A: I was present to see all personnel were on board and to re- ceive an inventory of the names and also the nationalities of men on board, from the transport commdt. and to take this back to the main p.o.w. camp in Siam. No further questions. No re-examination. QUESTIONS BY THE COURT Q: Did you supervise the embarkation of the p.o.ws. ? A: I saw the embarkation, Sir. Q: Was Jotani your subordinate ? A: No, sir. No further questions.
The final witness for the defence does have something relevant to say. Colonel SUGASAWA, Iju has already been convicted by a Military Tribunal, although the finding and sentence have yet to be confirmed. Shortly after the end of this Jotani trial the conviction and sentence were confirmed. He was given 12 years imprisonment. The file at TNA is WO235/964. Most of the proceedings can be read online through Australian Archives. Proceed to the Australian Archives and perform a "Record Search". The "Advanced Search" option appears below the enquiry completion box. Click on that and move to "Item barcode". Insert the figures " 30297583" and press return. A record page will appear and in the top right corner there will be an icon to invite you to read the digital copy. Colonel Sugasawa was subsequently tried by the United States Military Tribunals for his role as head of the Fukuoka POW Camp in Japan. He was sented to death and executed in July of 1948. The "Case Docket Number" is 224. A massive pdf document written by Greg Bradsher is available online from the American National Archives entitled " Japanese War Crimes and Related Topics: A Guide to Records at the National Archives." To return to the present case, the evidence confirms that the Hofuku Maru had a working wireless transmitter which was used to send a message about POW deaths back to Singapore. The final piece of evidence follows: DEFENCE WITNESS - COL. SUGASAWA Q: Will you please give your name and rank ? A: Sugasawa Iju; rank, Colonel in the Imperial Japanese Army. Q: During the period June 1944 till March 1945, what duties were you engaged in ? A: On the 22nd August I was named commanding officer of the Siam p.o.w. camps, and until March of the next year, I was the commanding officer there. Q: Do you know the accused Jotani who is in this Court ? A: I know him, Sir. Q: In what connection do you know him ? A: He is my subordinate. Q: About September 1944, do you have any recollection of receiving a wireless message from the accused Jotani ? A: In September 1944, I recollect receiving a message from Jotani. Q: What were the contents of the wireless message ? A: To my recollection, the message received from him was towards the end of September; it reported that there were 40 odd deaths which had occurred. Q: Have you ever met the accused Jotani after that ? A: Yes. Q: When was that ? A: In February 1945, when the accused Jotani returned from his trip to Japan; I receved a report pertaining to the voyage he had taken. Q: At that time did you receive or hear anything of it ? A: I received the following report from S/M Jotani. He said he was very unfortunate, but there were 47 deaths which were caused by malaria and beri-beri sicknesses. No further questions. Col. Sugasawa (contd). Page...(40) 53 CROSS-EXAMINATION Q: Apart from the message you say you received from Jotani about the deaths of 47 p.o.ws., have you ever received any other messages ? A: I received messages as to how many patients he had in the bomb- ings, and also as to what measures he took. Q: What patients are you referring to ? A: I do not understand what you mean by 'patients'. Q: Did he send a message in regard to the p.o.ws. that were sunk ? A: Yes, sir. Q: How many p.o.ws. did he state were sunk ? A: He may have, or he may not have, but I do not recollect very well. Q: Well, do you recollect apart from these two messages that he sent you - a third or fourth message ? A: Yes, sir. Q: What was it about ? A: He gave me a message reporting that on the 20th September after sailing away from Manila that he was bombed one or three days later. He reported that he was bombed and a ship sunk. He was rescued in a naval vessel and taken to Formosa. After receiving the message that he was rescued, I received a message that all the p.o.ws. had been transferred to the p.o.w. camp in Formosa. No further questions. No re-examination. No Court examination. Defence: Mr. President, this closes my case for the Defence, but if it please the Court, I wish to apply for an adjournment till Monday, on the grounds that my closing address is not prepared yet. At 1315 hours on March 28th 1947, the Court adjourns until 1000 hours, Monday March 31st.
War Crimes files have papers in various orders but to maintain the flow I will here give the two speeches or addresses of the opposing Counsel, first the Defence and then the prosecution. CLOSING ADDRESS IN DEFENCE OF JOTANI KITAICHI BY MURATA KIICHI, DEFENCE COUNSEL Mr. President and Members of this Honourable Military Court:- Before making the Closing Address proper, the defence counsel, Mr. K. Murata wishes to pay his respects on behalf of the defence, to the President and Members of this court, and to the learned Prosecutor, for the reasonable manner in which this trial has been conducted. In this case, the facts charged against Jotani Kitaichi, the accused, are that he on board the s.s. 'Hofuku Maru' on a voyage from Singapore to Japan between the 4th July, 1944 and the 21st September, 1944 when in charge of the draft of British and Dutch POWs, was in violation of the laws and usages of wars, concerned in the ill-treatment of the said POWs, resulting in the death of about 98 of them and in physical sufferings to many others. However, the defence counsel is convinced that the accused is not guilty for the following reasons. (1) During the war all kinds of equipment of the POWs transporta- tion ships were to be done at the responsibilities and under the supervision of The Army Shipping Transportation General-Head- quarters at Ujina. The s.s. 'Hofuku Maru' was one of the ships thus being equipped. As to the allotment of the holds to the POWs, the accused, who was at that time a draft commander, had no authority for the same; allotment having been done following the instructions from Sergeant Major Takahashi, Ship Commandant. There were five holds on board, two on the forward well deck, two on the after well deck and one amidships beneath the bridge. The POWs were accommodated in holds Nos. 2, 4 and 5 average number being about 400 in each hold. These three holds were the only ones available for the POWs. The personnel on board the ship were, besides the crew, Ship Commandant Sergeant Major Takahashi and his fifty subordinates and also Sergeant Major - 2 - Jotani and Sergeant Noro with forty-five Korean Guards under them who were in Hold No. 1. In this hold, there were mails and pack- ing cases in addition to these personnel, thus leaving no more space therein. Hold No. 3 was smaller in comparison with other ones. This hold was used for the provision stores and the remaining space was alloted for living quarters for a part of the members of the crew. Therefore, it is easily comprehended that there was no available space for the POWs besides the said three holds - Nos. 2, 4 and 5 - on board. The defence counsel wishes to call attention of the court as to how the accused did his best in ameliorating living conditions of the POWs during the course of voyage. He often conferred with the Captain of the ship for more space and allowed the POWs to sleep on deck, or to rest under the tarpaulin put up on the after deck after an agreement with the Captain of the ship. (2) The replenishment and loading of the POWs food stuffs was to be done under the supervision and with the responsibility of the Army Shipping Transportation General-Headquarters at Ujina. The 'Hofuku Maru' loaded at Ujina the staple food stuffs, such as rice and canned goods etc., for the round trip from Japan to Singapore and back, as was regulated in the Army. The rations to the POWs were issued under the supervision of the Captain of the 'Hofuku Maru'. The quantity of food given was according to the regulations laid down by the Japanese Army which amounted to 700 to 800 grammes of half-polished rice and also the same quantity of subsidiary food totaling about 3,000 calories per day per capita. Therefore, it can not be said that that ration was insufficient to maintain POWs health during the voyage. It is true that the rations were issued twice daily only, owing to difficulty for cooking on one hand, and the desire to be so fed on the part of the POWs, the other hand (sic). The accused gave much consideration towards the POWs diet, and soon after leaving Borneo, he issued the POWs emergency rations, such as sugar, dried vegetables and canned fish from the emergency provisions which were set aside according to regulations for any emergency on arrival in Japan. Drinking water - 3 - was also given according to the regulations which was 2 1/2 litres per day. In addition to this, the accused gave special concern for the drinking water supply for the POWs. For example, it was he who gave Creosote to the POWs for the purpose of preventing disease while at Miri, Borneo, where drinking water was contaminated, due to oil fields there. It can be perceived that the POWs sick cases happened at Manila, and they consisted mostly of Malaria and Beri- beri cases. It can not be said, however, that these diseases were caused by the food on board. It is a well known fact that these cases of Malaria were recurrences and therefore it is obvious that these patients had suffered Malaria prior to embarkation. Accord- ing to medical theory, Beri-beri takes a period of about three months before the first sympton occur. ( Medical reference:- Alex. Hood, Medical Book, October, 1942.....P.H. Manson-Bahr, Manson's Tropical Diseases, April, 1940, - "Period of development of Beri- beri in man has been determined by Fraser and Stanson as varying between 80 and 90 days ".... and this was proved by the witness Hisa, Capt., M.C. ) (3) The medical supplies to the POWs were also issued in accor- ance with the regulations of the Japanese Army. The POWs' medical officer received the necessary medical supplies needed (from) for medical treatment during the entire voyage to Japan when they left the camp in Thailand. And at the time of embarkation at Singapore, the POWs' Medical officer had three boxes containing medical supplies. This fact has been proved by the witness Captain Takagi (Liaison officer of the POWs camp) who was present at the time of embarkation. As given in evidence, the ship was forced to stay for about 10 days at Miri, Borneo owing to engine trouble and for more than 50 days in Manila accounting to engine trouble and refuges taken from air attacks of the Allied Air Forces. As the result, the ship had to take exceedingly long time on the voyage, whereby exhausting the entire medical supplies. This is main reason why POWs died on board. In other words, the POWs' deaths at Manila was due to unexpected delay of voyage under such circum- stances. Therefore, it is unreasonable to say that the accused - 4 - should bear responsibility in this respect. As to medical supplies of the POWs, special consideration was taken by the accused. For example, at Manila, Vitamin injection and multi-vitamin tablets were taken on board from the Japanese camp ( not from the American Army ) due to effort of the accused in response to the POWs' request. These medical supplies were handed over to the POWs' Medical officer on board the ship by the accused. It is untrue that these medical supplies were misappropriated by the Japanese troops. (4) At Manila fifty patients were allowed to be taken ashore and hospitalized there. This was done according to the order of the Japanese Medical Authority who investigated the number of the sick requiring hospitalization and, therefore, in no way can the accused be held responsible that more POWs were not taken. (5) On board the 'Hofuku Maru' the latrines in question were located at six different positions along both sides of the ship, three being located on the Portside and three on the Starboard side and, at each position there were three or four seats adjoin- ing one another, thus permitting altogether 18 or 20 personnel to utilize them at one time. The Japanese personnel also used these latrines as did the POWs. In addition to this, the POWs were supplied a few night chambers in each hold. There had been no discrimination between Japanese personnel and the POWs in this respect. (6) It is true that the deaths among the POWs occurred on board the ship while anchored outside Manila harbour, but the number of the dead was not 98 as is stated in the charge. The actual number of dead was 47. The accused, as was proved by testimony of the witness - Colonel Sugazawa, who was at that time Commander of the POWs camp at Thailand, reported the number of death to the said commander by wireless. At first these dead were taken ashore and given burial at a cemetery in Manila. But soon after the Allied attacks became so intensified that the 'Hofuku Maru' was forced to take reuge at a distance of approximately 7 or 8 miles away from the coast by order of the Japanese Naval Commandant at Manila, the accused no longer could take such measure other - 5 - than that of which he had taken, as to the disposal of dead. It is noted that none of the POWs themselves knew number of dead (sic) taken off the ship. It is suggested that as the number is the same as the number of POWs there were less on the ship, when the ship sailed from Manila that might have been the source of the number 98 which they tender. Probably the hospital cases were added onto the dead. (7) The ship was attacked by the Allied Air Forces at Manila on September 21st, 1944. As was testified by the accused by himself and also by the witness Noro, POWs were given life-jackets at the time of embarkation at Singapore and they were carried by the POWs at all times during the course of voyage. At the time the 'Hofuku Maru' was sinking, the accused gave orders for all personnel and POWs to abandon the ship and also took every appropriate measure considered necessary at the time of emergency. (8) During the course of the voyage, there were occasions when the accused beat the POWs. One of these occasions was when the POWs stole clothings belonging to a member of the crew, and the another occasion when the POWs smoked during the black-out in which dura- tion smoking was strictly prohibited. On both occasions, it was really inevitable for the accused to do that for the maintenance of order and for the sake of discipline on board, as the draft commander of the POWs. This, therefore, can not be called a mal-treatment towards the POWs. In no occasion did the accused use weapon such as an iron crow-bar. It is noted all the way through this trial that the accused has not tried to put the blame on anyone else, but it is held by the defence that the mere fact that senior officers did not take any action about conditions on the ship, but left all arrangements to the accused, does not mean that he was to be held responsible for any negligencies that occurred on board the ship. It is pointed out that up to Manila Sergeant Major Takahashi was on the ship and that although he did not bother about the conditions of the POWs, it was still his responsibility to do so. The Captain of the ship is not without blame either. In fact legally speaking, he is the sole man responsible. It is a well known principle of Military law, of which we require the court - 6 - to take judicial notice that when on board a ship the Captain is the one responsible for everything that goes on on the ship and that every one else on board is junior to him. In British Military Law, it is laid down, as in the law of all other armies.. ....note order in council respecting discipline on board his Majesties ships 1942 'Whenever any of Your Majesties land or Air forces shall be embarked as passengers in any of Your Majesties Ships, the officers, soldiers and airmen shall, from time of embarkation, strictly observe the laws and regulations established for the Government and discipline of Your Majesties Navy, and shall for these purposes, be under the command of the Captain of the ship as well as the senior naval officer present; '. It is pointed out that in the British forces this has been the practice since time immemorial and has in the past been laid down in....Order in Council respecting discipline on board his Majesties ships as amended by order in Council dated 30th June, 1890. And in Order in Council amending the above order 13th February, 1912, also in further Order in Council amending the above order 4th May, 1923. It is pointed out that although the laws under which troops were charged for disobedience have changed it has always remained in the British forces a basic principle that personnel on board ship are under the command of the Captain. The defence submit that for obvious reasons the Japanese Military law is exactly the same on this point. The defence counsel believes that all the facts mentioned hereby have been proved by the testimony given by the defence witnesses. Therefore, I wish to make a plea to this Honourable Court that the accused is not guilty. Murata Kiichi Defence Counsel PROSECUTION CLOSING ADDRESS Mr. President and members of this honourable Military Court. May it please you, the Prosecution has firmly established and it is not chall- enged by the Defence that s.s. HOFUKU MARU was a cargo steamer of about 8000 tons and about the 4th July 44 sailed from Singapore for Japan carrying approximately 1250 POWs. The ship carried a cargo of bauxite or iron-ore which filled the lower holds and it was only the upper holds which carried the POWs and other Japanese soldiers. The ship proceeded to Miri in Borneo and then to Manila where it stayed about fifty days. It left Manila about the 20th. Sept. and on 21 Sept. 44 was sunk in an aerial bombardment. The accused S/M. Jotani was in charge of the POWs at the time of the embarkation. At this time and also during the voyage there was another Japanese NCO present on the ship and this was S/M TAKAHASHI. Who was S/M TAKAHASHI and what were his responsibilities needs clari- fication. In none of the affidavits produced by the Prosecution he has been referred to by the witnesses. PW 1 and 2 Rankine and Hunter do not name him. They all state that the person in authority on HOFUKU MARU was JOTANI and he had complete responsibility for the POWs. The accused and NORO JUNICHI have referred to TAKAHASHI as the Commandant of the Ship. It was only Jotani who was in charge of the party of the POWs. S/M. Takahashi was in charge of the Japanese Soldiers. He was command- ant of the ship. Jotani says S/M. TAKAHASHI was in command of fifty Japanese soldiers. About 40 Korean guards were under my command. Taka- hashi was commandant of all the Japanese soldiers on board. The ship's commandant had no direct responsibility for the POWs. He refers to Takahashi as Commandant at various places in his statement and says he received instructions from him but he describes no instructions that he received. When questioned by the court, when he first went on board the ship and contacted the ship's commandant, " Did you see S/M Takahashi ? Ans: Yes. What did he say ? Ans: He just said that he wished for my health during the voyage. Gentleman, the only con- clusion the Prosecution draws from such statements is that S/M. Takahashi had not the authority of the Ship's Commandant but was only in charge of a party of Japanese soldiers on HOFUKU MARU. The evidence after this becomes easy to analyse and understand. It was the accused who supervised the embarkation. It was the accused who allocated the holds for the POWs and who satisfied himself about rations and medical supplies aboard. It was he who, as he admits, was responsible for issue of rations in the course of voyage and to take disciplinary action against the POWs. He went ashore in Manila Bay and obtained medical supplies and it was he who communicated with the camp in Siam reporting the movements of the POWs. Gentlemen, ninety eight, or approximately ninety eight, persons died aboard the ship HOFUKU MARU in Manila Bay and this was as a consequence of the illtreatment of the POWs received at the hands of the accused. PW, Rankine and Hunter have related to you that the whole party of 1250 POWs was divided in two and herded in two holds No.2 and 3. No.4 hold was empty to begin with ( PW HUNTER) and it was later after representation that it could be used as a hospital. POWs were allowed to use the deck with restriction. At the same time, the accused states that No.1 hold was occupied with ninety Japanese and the fifth hold, about which there is discrepancy as which number hold 3? it was, was occupied by a portion of crew and the rations for the voyage. I will leave you to judge, Sir, if this was an equitable distribution of the available accommodation. Capt. Gibson in his affidavit in para 16 says " The condition of 650 men living and sleeping in such a stifling hold had to be seen to be believed." There is ample evidence which will convince that there was such overcrowding which materially contributed to the illness and ultimate death of the POWs. ( following page ) Food was another factor which largely influenced the condition of the POWs. Though the accused has related the scale of rations and his responsibility for their distribution but he did nothing to discharge that responsibility. The person in charge of the rations was a civilian attached to the army but he does seem to have been controlled and checked. The quality and quantity of food has been described to you in detail by the witnesses and I expect you would not require me to go through it again but I would like to emphasise that it completely lacked in vitamine content causing beri-beri and pellagra. It is in evidence that when the POWs stared (sic) from the camp they were healthy and their subsequent exhaustion illness and death was largely due to mal- nutrition. And this was caused when there seemed to enough (sic) rations on board for the Japanese and when rations, fresh, were allowed to rot and thrown away. Hunter says that if rations allowed to waste were allowed to POWs much of the distress could have been avoided. There was great scarcity of medecines and had proper arrangements been made at the start in Singapore and sufficient precaustions taken on board the vessel much loss of life could have been avoided. In Manila Bay not all the sick were evacuated and what ever supplied (sic) were obtained from the Americans a greater part was misappropriated. No facilities were allowed on board the vessel for treatment of the sick. There were no arrangements for evacuation of the sick in case the ship was attacked. In short I may subit (sic), Sir, that the whole plight of the POWs was due entirely to the gross negligence of the accused. About the beatings which the accused admits and about which he says were administered as a measure to maintain discipline, I refer you to all the affidavits and depositions. It was the accused practice to go round beating prisoners for no apparent reason with anything he could lay his hands on and as a consequence a great strain was put on the POWs who did not know when he might turn up. The defence apart from the accused have produced five witnesses, one of whom is a medical officer. Capt. MASAO states about the cause and development of beri-beri pellagra and malaria. The defence attempts to prove that the diseases were contacted (sic) by the POWs in the Camp and hence no responsibility of the accused. But that is not so. Even accepting the argument of the defence that the POWs were infected at the camp the fact remains the deaths were caused through the illtreatment in the ship. The other four witnesses of the defence have made depositions of a general nature which has no direct bearing in the present case. I do not think their evidence needs analysis. In conclusion, I will submit, Sir, that the guilt of the accused has been completely proved and that he be punished according to law.
The proceedings come to a conclusion and the Military Tribunal delivers the decision. FINDING. ( Plea of not guilty ) (41) 54 The court is closed for consideration of the finding(s). The court is re-opened. The finding(s) (of not guilty) is/(are) announced by the President, who states that the finding(s) of guilty is/(are) subject to confirmation. PROCEEDINGS OF CONVICTION. Evidence as to the age, previous history, so far as it is known, of the accused and any facts which may serve to mitigate the gravity of the offence. Incl in transcripts The accused is/(are) asked the following question: Do you wish to address the court on the above evidence or in mitigation of punishment ? Answer Yes ! The court is closed for consideration of the sentence(s). The court is re-opened. (The finding(s) of guilty and) The sentence(s) are announced by the President, who states that they are subject to confirmation. ( Reg.8 (iv) ). PSS/1051-500-1/46. GP page....(42) 56 The Court re-assembles at 1030 hrs on March 31st. Prosecutor: Before the closing address is made by the Defence Counsel, may I point out to the Court one or two errors in the proceedings. The first is a very small error where the stenographer has referred to 'holes' instead of 'holds'. The other mistake is in the examination-in-chief of Flatfort where the photographic plate is handed to the court. It was not the original plate that was admitted as evi- dence, but a copy. President: Will you make the necessary corrections. Are you ready to begin with your address, Defence Counsel ? Defence: Yes, sir. Closing address for the Defence is read by Captain Sinclair, which is handed to the Court and marked EXHIBIT O Exhibit "O", signed by the President, and attached to the proceedings The Prosecutor makes his closing address, which is EXHIBIT P handed to the Court and marked Exhibit "P", signed by the President, and attached to the proceedings. President: There are one or two irregularities in both your closing addresses which I should point out. Firstly Defence Counsel, you have referred to in- cidents of fact that have not been proved before the Court. For example, you refer to a tarpaulin put up on the after deck; this is the first time the Court has heard you say anything about the tar- paulin. Secondly, the heat values of the food. You mention 3000 calories as being the value food (value) of the food supplied; that is the first time the Court has heard anything about the heat value. As far as the Court is aware, it was between 1400 and 1600 grammes per day. You have referred to an expert on tropical diseases, Manson Bahr; that is the first time the Court has heard reference to this book. If you wish to lead evidence of fact, it must be heard in open Court, and the place for it is before your closing address. Will you bear that in mind. As far as the Prosecution is concerned, you have reffered to the fifth hold containing rations; it is No.3 hold that actually held the rations. Prosecution: I have said it is in dispute as to which hold the rations actually were. President: Finally, it is for the Court to draw their own conclusions. Court adjourns for findings. FINDING BY THE COURT The finding of this court is subject to confirmation. S/M JOTANI KITAICHI, this Court finds you guilty of the charge preferred against you. Court: Major Srivistava, have you any evidence as to age and previous history of the accused ? 31.3.47 page...(43) 56 Age and service-sheet of the accused S/M Jotani Kitaichi, is read to the Court by the Prosecutor, which is admitted EXHIBIT Q in evidence as Exhibit "Q", signed by the President and attached to the proceedings. President: Defence Counsel, have you any evidence of fact and character which may serve to mitigate the offence of the accused ? Defence: No, sir. President: S/M Jotani Kitaichi, do you wish to address the Court ? A: Yes, sir. I wish the Defence counsel to speak for me. Plea in Mitigation. I admit that when the accused sailed on the Hofuku Maru, he was a Sergeant, and we ask the Court merely to take notice that a Sergeant in the Japanese Army is a very low rank, com- paratively, and yet he would be required to do a job equiva- lent to that of a British Officer. The conditions on the ship were difficult and yet the accused had to try his best. We ask the Court to consider, what more could he have done ? There were three holds and he divided the p.o.ws., 400 into each hold; there was very poor food and yet he gave them emergency rations; medical supplies were short, and yet he went on shore (at Manila) and got some; also to the water supply, the accused gave special concern and he did his best. We therefore ask the Court to take all this into consideration. The Court closes to consider sentence. SENTENCE BY THE COURT The sentence imposed by this Court is subject to confirmation. S/M JOTANI KITAICHI, the sentence of this Court is that you suffer death by hanging. _________________________________________ The Court is closed - 11.20 a.m. _________________________________________
Apologies for any typing errors. The document was typed in Word 1998 for Mac and cut and pasted to this site. So far as possible I have tried to make the transcript as accurate as possible. The documents have been in the public domain since 1979 or thereabouts. I claim no ownership to any of these documents. It helps if the original file reference at the National Archives is used : WO 235/995. I am pleased that I have managed to shed some light on the final voyage of the s.s. Hofuku Maru. May those who embarked upon the final voyage, including my father's elder brother, who did not survive the voyage, rest in peace.
Hi papiermache, I have just stumbled across this site and all your entries regarding the Hofuku Maru and have found it absolutely fascinating even though I haven't had chance to read it all in full yet. Thanks so much for posting it. My father was aboard this ship when it sunk and was in the 2nd Cambridgeshire Regiment with Captain Dean. My dad was one of the lucky ones who survived and after about 6 hours in the water he was one of about a dozen who were picked up by a Japanese destroyer and taken to Formosa. A lot of his friends were not so lucky. At the end of the war or sometime after he was taken to Formosa, he compiled an exercise book of everyone from the Cambs Regt and those in "69 party No 2 Camp, Thailand" who were on board. These others were from various other Regiments including, 5th Beds & Herts, 2nd Loyals, 2nd Gordons, 1st Manchesters, 18th Div Recce and others. I still treasure this book and in it he lists survivors and deaths as best he could remember or find out. Captain Dean relied heavily on my dad's book when they eventually got home and had to compile a summary of what happened to the men 2nd Cambs regiment. A few years ago I acquired a copy of the Hofuku Maru roster which lists the POWs and makes very sober reading when you think most of the names did not survive. The funny thing is that I don't think my father was ever aware that the Captain of the Hofuku Maru was ever tried for his war crime. I wish Dad was alive today to read your posts and know that some sort of justice ensued afterwards. thank you again. Karen
Karen, Welcome to the site and thank you for your kind thoughts. I would be very interested in knowing more about the book your father kept. I have seen something similar at the National Archives ( file released in April 2011 ). The lists of deaths at sea prior to 21st September 1944 are incomplete and your records may be unique. I do not currently have my research materials to hand, but have sent a message to you. Thanks for posting to the site.