A man accused of killing a Filipino woman in his Tokyo apartment and chopping up her body has told investigators that he murdered another Filipino woman nine years ago, it has been learned.

However, Nozaki appears to be a tough nut to crack. He appears to understand that judicial/police thinking in Japan is: only the guilty confess.

however, concerning Ponta’s comments regarding Debito Arudo’s site and the Ibudor case - what possible bearing do they have on the article in question? Stop bringing your personal problems with Mr Arudo onto other sites!

And on this:

On the reasons given above I refrain from concluding he killed again. Even court couldn’t find the sufficient evidence. With less evidences available to us, what can we say?

Perhaps it’s because J-Courts don’t usually have to consider evidence and ponder the likely chain of events. No - they need a piece of paper, produced after non-stop interrogation over the course of a few weeks saying ‘I did it’, or ‘In my presence the defendant indicated that they did it’.

And of course, add in J-police incompetence and what do we have? ‘Destruction of a corpse’…

Pathetic.

However, there are small points I want to point out.

so when the police failed to force a confession out of him, they effectively had zero evidence to pursue the charge with. Instead he did three and a half years in the detention center for dismembering and abandoning a body.

Are you sure the police didn’t get the confession?
In trials it is not entirely uncommon that the accused either confesses or is tricked to confess, but he/she denies it at the court.
Besides, there are cases where the prosecutors go with the charge of murder without confession and the court find him guilty.
When the evidences are sufficient beyond doubt for murder, He is convicted of murder.
When the evidences are not sufficient beyond doubt for murder but sufficient for the destruction of corpse, he is convicted of the destruction of the corpse. This is often the case with the murder where after one killed the victim, another was asked to dispose of the corpse. The latter has no intention of killing and there is no fact that he committed the muder, so he cannot be convicted of murder but he committed another crime.

By the way in case of Mr Ibudor, he confessed in the investigative process that he poked his finger into the genitals of the alleged victim and it seems he didn’t deny it at the court according to the court text Mr Arudo publicized later.
Mr Idbor and Mr Arudo kept the confession hidden until pointed out. He now claims he was tricked on the letters he recently has publicized on Mr Arudou’s blog. I am not saying Mr Ibdour is guilty;I don’t know whether Mr Ibduor raped the alleged victims just as I don’t know if Nozaki killed the first victim. But I am suggesting the people concerned to give full explanation so that people may reach the truth. Rather than trying to hide the fact that is disadvantagious to the accused, I think it is much better to give the people concerned a chance to give full explanation. And to give full and fair explanation, you need to respond to different perspectives. Supressing them does not help.
I asked Mr Ibdor and his wife to speak out on my blog,
Japan Probe or TPR in the comment but unfortunately Mr Arudou blocked it. Please inform his wife that he and his wife are given a full opportunity to explain it on my blog, or TPR.
I am telling this here because it is such an important matter

And now he’s killed again.

On the reasons given above I refrain from concluding he killed again. Even court couldn’t find the sufficient evidence. With less evidences available to us, what can we say?

There is a reason to think he had killed another woman, because it seems to be certain that he killed the woman this time.
But as you might know, this kind of inference is prohibited and therefore the evidence related to his past crime is prohibited from being brought in the court as a rule because that might give undue bias against the accused—-say, Tom committed a theft in the past, it does not follow that he committed the theft this time, but people mistakenly tend to think just because he committed it in the past he must have committed it again.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule, though. I am sure the U.S, evidential law has similar rules.

I agree that the police needs thorough profiling and recordings about the criminals so that we may arrest the killer and prevent him/her from committing another crime.
At the same time I understand the judge’s dilemma.
On the one hand he/she can’t take a risk of a false accusation and should stick with the principle that innocent until proved beyond doubt but on the other hand, still the accused might turn out to be a serial killer in the end.

Ono’s trial is a case in point.
http://mainichi.jp/select/jiken/judge/news/20080327ddm041040162000c.html
Ono was found guilty at the lower court but the higher
court reversed it on the ground that the confession was judeged as coerced. But five years later Ono committed another murder. It is most probable, according to your difinition, that he was a serial killer.