***
"When did the court hearing, the court prosecution accepted the same scenario, as follows: Aum members who were involved in the sarin attack, filled with sarin nylon-polyethylene bags and let him, piercing the end of their umbrella. I was convinced that they are guilty.But the fall of 1997 at the local library I started reading captured on microfilm newspapers Yomiuri, Asahi and Mainichi published after the incident, and found some discrepancies..."
"After careful consideration I have concluded that the recognition of criminals from AUM somewhat credible. But at the same time, I had a horrible suspicion that in sarin attack were involved people outside the accused group.
Information published shortly after the attack, pointing to the fact that it was carried out by professionals. But the data confirming this, gradually disappeared, leaving only the data corresponding to the current version of the accusers in court. Surprisingly many episodes disappeared without explanation. And differences in initial communications and have not received satisfactory explanations".
"In the event of an incident with sarin in the Tokyo subway sarin identification process is completely unclear. Although the case is called "sarin" incident in the subway, it seems that the scientific basis for this does not exist, and, moreover, no scientific research is not carried out.
Details of nylon plastic bags appeared in newspaper articles about of the first statement of the prosecution in court. But these bags have never been presented in court. Indeed, the prosecution seems from the start was not going to represent them".
Hideaki Miura
