Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000

[FacelessPodcast]

And yet as far as I'm aware the official version is that all the members of the family (4 is that right?) next door didn't hear anything apart from a thud which the police theorised was the drop down loft stairs being shut. I find it impossible to believe that if there were screams and noises nobody next door would hear them.

So we have three possibilities as I see it-

1) There were screams but the family members next door all somehow managed to sleep through them. As I said, I find this impossible to believe in a poorly sound proofed house, especially if the noise of stairs been put back into place IS enough to wake the whole house.

2) The killer is incredibly lucky and manages to kill all four people without making any noise. I could buy into this with the boy and the dad. The boy was strangled so no noise there and the dad could have been surprised and subdued before he had a chance to react. The mother and daughter upstairs were asleep and so at this point this seems like a pretty decent explanation. However, he attacks them, waking them both, then decides to go and replace the broken knife (why didn't he do this before attacking them?). At this point the mother and daughter are both very much awake and are injured. The element of suprise is totally gone. Why stay quiet? Shock could be a factor, as could staying quiet thinking he's gone and worrying in case he came back. But once you see the guy returning up the stairs with a new knife then I find it difficult to believe they would then be hacked to death in silence. Especially a young girl. If this scenario did play out the killer was incredibly lucky. What are the chances you can kill four people, three of whom were horribly stabbed, over ten minutes, in total silence? This then opens up the possibility that the killer either wanted or expected to be caught. Perhaps he didn't care.

3) Final explanation. The people in the house next door, the fellow family members, were somehow involved. I don't know enough about this to properly suggest this may have happened. But it would explain how the killer got in, it would explain the lack of reported noise and it would explain the eyewitness who described walking past and hearing an argument. As well as that, the overwhelming majority of murders are carried out by someone known to the victim. The big hole in this theory would be I would assume the family members were fingerprinted, blood tested etc to exclude them from suspicion?

Thanks so much for your kind words, Captain Hastings. Very much appreciated, so glad you enjoyed. And you're right, I can confirm the soundproofing between the two houses were crappy, my sound guy in the podcast was very clear about that. The example he gave was that if someone coughed in one house, you'd hear it next door - despite the soundproofing. Let alone people (presumably) screaming for their lives.

1) I'm with you, possible, but hard to imagine. Particularly because they heard the loud thud.

2) Again, possible but almost unimaginable. And as for what the killer wanted, it's true he was so careless it looks almost like he wanted to be caught. But then he came dressed in clothes that made it clear he didn't want to be recognised. One of the hankies he brought was pinched at the front as if it had been used as a face mask. There's the bucket hat. The fact he came under darkness. And then he patched himself up, displaying self-preservation. And he didn't turn himself in. So, despite the devil may care attitude, he can't be totally devoid of self-importance.

3) I can't speak too much on this front. <modsnip> But I will say that there are questions here that have never been answered. We reached out multiple times to Ann Irie, the maternal sister, and she declined to take part in the podcast. Which is her right and I respect that right. But those questions remain unanswered. And yes, everyone in the house next door was fingerprinted.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

I was thinking of how the transportation the killer may have used, and why didn’t he steal the family car and ditch it at a train station or elsewhere? (Maybe he didn’t know how to drive.)

I tried looking up public transportation and only found Trip Advisor reviews of the Setagaya train, which seems quaint, and the paternal grandmother’s quote about visiting the family:

“Twice a week, Miyazawa had traveled for two hours by train and bus from her home in Saitama Prefecture to take care of the children while her son and daughter-in-law worked.

When she exited the bus at a stop nearest to the house, the two children who were waiting outside would run toward her, saying, “Grandma.””

‘Why can’t it be solved?’ Still no suspect in 2000 killing of family | The Asahi Shimbun: Breaking News, Japan News and Analysis

The killer seemed to waste time in the home, maybe he had to wait until he knew public transportation was running? (In Toronto, for example, the subway runs between 6:00 am to 2:00 am, but there are some 24 hour buses).

He could walk or skateboard, if he had one, but my impression is that his hand wound was serious and he couldn’t venture out of the home until he had that under control, imo.

 

[FacelessPodcast]

I was thinking of how the transportation the killer may have used, and why didn’t he steal the family car and ditch it at a train station or elsewhere? (Maybe he didn’t know how to drive.)

I tried looking up public transportation and only found Trip Advisor reviews of the Setagaya train, which seems quaint, and the paternal grandmother’s quote about visiting the family:

“Twice a week, Miyazawa had traveled for two hours by train and bus from her home in Saitama Prefecture to take care of the children while her son and daughter-in-law worked.

When she exited the bus at a stop nearest to the house, the two children who were waiting outside would run toward her, saying, “Grandma.””

‘Why can’t it be solved?’ Still no suspect in 2000 killing of family | The Asahi Shimbun: Breaking News, Japan News and Analysis

The killer seemed to waste time in the home, maybe he had to wait until he knew public transportation was running? (In Toronto, for example, the subway runs between 6:00 am to 2:00 am, but there are some 24 hour buses).

He could walk or skateboard, if he had one, but my impression is that his hand wound was serious and he couldn’t venture out of the home until he had that under control, imo.

Yes, I've often wondered how the killer got away. The family car was in the garage and that's the one room the killer never enters according to the TMPD. So, either the killer didn't know how to drive or simply figured it was too much hassle. I suppose ditching the car also gives the police another point of enquiry, even if, as we know, this killer didn't seem too bothered about that.

From the house in Soshigaya Park, there were multiple stations the killer could've gone for. The nearest one is probably about 15 minutes or so walking. I agree that the time spent in the house could well be him waiting for public transport to re-open. Then again, if public transport was a concern, him starting the attack at 11pm wouldn't have given him a *great* deal of time to get back on to a train after it.

But even after 1:23am, the last definitive known time the killer was in the house, he still would have had to walk through a residential area and then likely a shopping district to reach the station. Let alone after 5am when the first trains started running. How could he have risked a single person noticing a man with an injured hand?

The other possibility is that he simply walked off into the dark, sticking to the back streets. He kept his hand in his pocket and his head down. He far could he have walked like that? Or maybe he didn't have to walk that far...

 

[Captain Hastings]

How do we know it was definitely a hand injury? Seems a safe bet in a knife attack, but was this confirmed by anything or was this just the most likely scenario?

As for the get away, im not sure what the driving age in Japan is but if the killer was young he may not have been able to drive. Also, as mentioned above, it could very well be more hassle than it's worth having to dump a car. He could also have driven and parked nearby and then gone back to his car afterwards.

It's also possible the killer lived within walking distance of the house and that is how he got to and from the scene.

 

[FacelessPodcast]

How do we know it was definitely a hand injury? Seems a safe bet in a knife attack, but was this confirmed by anything or was this just the most likely scenario?

As for the get away, im not sure what the driving age in Japan is but if the killer was young he may not have been able to drive. Also, as mentioned above, it could very well be more hassle than it's worth having to dump a car. He could also have driven and parked nearby and then gone back to his car afterwards.

It's also possible the killer lived within walking distance of the house and that is how he got to and from the scene.

He left his gloves behind which were covered in his own blood and they were presumably cut up.

Driving age in Japan is 18 but I can tell you that finding parking in Tokyo is no easy task. Street parking is pretty rare. So dumping a car in the city wouldn't have been easy even if he could drive.

I think he was most likely walking and, if I were a betting man, would say he was living or staying not too far away.

 

[Captain Hastings]

He left his gloves behind which were covered in his own blood and they were presumably cut up.

Driving age in Japan is 18 but I can tell you that finding parking in Tokyo is no easy task. Street parking is pretty rare. So dumping a car in the city wouldn't have been easy even if he could drive.

I think he was most likely walking and, if I were a betting man, would say he was living or staying not too far away.

I agree the most likely scenario is he walked to and from the scene. That limits the distance between the victims house and where ever the suspect was staying.

In terms of the gloves. This is very interesting. As far as I was aware he had gloves on him, but didn't wear them, hence the large amount of fingerprint and DNA evidence. So, if he's not wearing the gloves, why does he take them and and perhaps more intriguing, the cuts to the gloves don't make sense. How can you get your glove sliced up if you're not wearing them at the time of the attack? It's possible he was wearing them, got cut and took them off. But does that tally with the fingerprint evidence on things like the murder weapons?

Does anyone know if the same fingerprints were found on both the knife brought to the scene and the second one used from the kitchen?

 

[Captain Hastings]

Just to add to the above re the gloves. Why would he wear gloves? Presumably hes worried about fingerprint evidence, is the obvious answer. But if hes worried about leaving evidence the rest of his behavior doesn't match with this. He ditches them (if he was wearing them to start with) and leaves fingerprints everywhere. Then he decides to leave not just the blood (he doesn't have any option with that if he was cut) but he purposefully goes out of his way to leave as much DNA for the police to find as possible - feces and saliva etc. Why do that if you started off worrying about leaving evidence? It's another instance where it's almost like the killer wanted to leave as much evidence as possible.

 

[FacelessPodcast]

I agree the most likely scenario is he walked to and from the scene. That limits the distance between the victims house and where ever the suspect was staying.

In terms of the gloves. This is very interesting. As far as I was aware he had gloves on him, but didn't wear them, hence the large amount of fingerprint and DNA evidence. So, if he's not wearing the gloves, why does he take them and and perhaps more intriguing, the cuts to the gloves don't make sense. How can you get your glove sliced up if you're not wearing them at the time of the attack? It's possible he was wearing them, got cut and took them off. But does that tally with the fingerprint evidence on things like the murder weapons?

Does anyone know if the same fingerprints were found on both the knife brought to the scene and the second one used from the kitchen?

He wore them initially, as I understand it. But when he injured his hand, he was likely forced to take them off. By the time he's bleeding everywhere, he probably figured that the fingerprints wouldn't really make much of a difference by that point. So, given his fingerprints were on the knife (and indeed the secondary knife which belonged to the family) he probably took the gloves off after attacking Mikio and sustaining the injury there. Then he takes the knife upstairs to attack Niina and Yasuko, only to realise the knife is no longer working properly. That's when he goes downstairs and gets the carving knife. Side point: if he's wearing gloves when he first approaches the house, it also explains why there are no fingerprints in the window (if that is indeed how he got in).

Then again, if hiding his fingerprints weren't his intention, it's possible he just had them on for the cold -- it was late December at Tokyo gets bitterly cold. But my take is that he was planning to hide his identity, but the situation got away from him.

 

[FacelessPodcast]

Just to add to the above re the gloves. Why would he wear gloves? Presumably hes worried about fingerprint evidence, is the obvious answer. But if hes worried about leaving evidence the rest of his behavior doesn't match with this. He ditches them (if he was wearing them to start with) and leaves fingerprints everywhere. Then he decides to leave not just the blood (he doesn't have any option with that if he was cut) but he purposefully goes out of his way to leave as much DNA for the police to find as possible - feces and saliva etc. Why do that if you started off worrying about leaving evidence? It's another instance where it's almost like the killer wanted to leave as much evidence as possible.

I can only guess but it feels like his original intention was to hide his identity and then the situation just span out of control.

 

[Captain Hastings]

That is certainly an explanation. But something to me feels off about the gloves. I can understand wearing them and then the situation changing with a cut and therefore blood evidence rendering them pointless. But would you then go from trying to hide evidence to doing a total 180 and purposefully leaving as much as you can? It's possible but it strikes me as strange. Why give the police fingerprints, feces and saliva as well as blood? Fingerprints are more likely to get you caught than the other things.

 

[dotr]

Any chance that the killer brought ''items'' containing someone else's DNA to plant at the house to leave false evidence, perhaps explaining why there was so much of it? speculation, imo.

 

[Captain Hastings]

I have also had the same through dotr as it would explain the abundance of evidence left at the scene, some which, such as the feces and saliva, that simply doesn't need to be left. The main sticking point with that theory is the fingerprints. How do you get a mystery man's fingerprints onto various objects in the house, including the second murder weapon? It's feasibly possible some evidence was planted, but the fingerprints must have come from the act as it was happening? It also seems a bit much to bring along feces, saliva samples etc. with you to a murder scene.

 

[FacelessPodcast]

The police described it as a treasure trove of forensic evidence, yes. Essentially, given there was a copious amount of the killer's blood, faeces, saliva, fingerprints, and hairs, you would have to assume that in 22 years and infinite amounts of resources, the TMPD would have by now been able to parse more than one genetic profile from the scene.

Ignoring the difficulty of transporting all these samples to the house and keeping them to one side while you murder the family, this would also require a Moriarity-level intellect which the subsequent actions throughout the house just don't bear out. Why would he go to all that trouble to frame someone (particularly someone NOT with a previous criminal record that the police wouldn't easily find) only to act so brashly after the murders, staying behind at the scene and so on?

Anything is possible but given how devil-may-care the killer's actions were, it seems like a disconnect to go to such great lengths to frame an unknown male?

 

[dotr]

Regarding mixed DNA, lengthy article. fwiw. rbbm

Framed for Murder By His Own DNA | FRONTLINE

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

www.pbs.org

APRIL 19, 2018 by Katie Worth
''When the DNA results came back, even Lukis Anderson thought he might have committed the murder.

“I drink a lot,” he remembers telling public defender Kelley Kulick as they sat in a plain interview room at the Santa Clara County, California, jail. Sometimes he blacked out, so it was possible he did something he didn’t remember. “Maybe I did do it.”
''
What happened, although months would pass before anyone figured it out, was that Lukis Anderson’s DNA had found its way onto the fingernails of a dead man he had never even met.''

''But van Oorschot’s paper also contained a vital observation: Some people’s DNA appeared on things that they had never touched.

In the years since, van Oorschot’s lab has been one of the few to investigate this phenomenon, dubbed “secondary transfer.” What they have learned is that, once it’s out in the world, DNA doesn’t always stay put.''


''To find out the prevalence of DNA in the world, a group of Dutch researchers tested 105 public items — escalator rails, public toilet door handles, shopping basket handles, coins. Ninety-one percent bore human DNA, sometimes from half a dozen people. Even items intimate to us — the armpits of our shirts, say — can bear other people’s DNA, they found.

The itinerant nature of DNA has serious implications for forensic investigations. After all, if traces of our DNA can make their way to a crime scene we never visited, aren’t we all possible suspects?''

But as advances in technology are solving some of these problems, they have actually made the problem of DNA transfer worse. Each new generation of forensic tools is more sensitive; labs today can identify people with DNA from just a handful of cells. A handful of cells can easily migrate.''

''The on-scene supervisor walked him through the house. Dressers emptied, files dumped. A cellphone in a toilet, pissed on. ''

''Police records showed that Austin belonged to a gang linked to a series of home burglaries. And most damning of all, Austin’s older sister, a 32-year-old sex worker named Katrina Fritz, had been involved with Raveesh for 12 years. Police had even found her phone backed up on Raveesh’s computer. Eventually she would admit that she had given her brother a map of the house.''

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Regarding mixed DNA, lengthy article. fwiw. rbbm

Framed for Murder By His Own DNA | FRONTLINE

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

www.pbs.org

APRIL 19, 2018 by Katie Worth
''When the DNA results came back, even Lukis Anderson thought he might have committed the murder.

“I drink a lot,” he remembers telling public defender Kelley Kulick as they sat in a plain interview room at the Santa Clara County, California, jail. Sometimes he blacked out, so it was possible he did something he didn’t remember. “Maybe I did do it.”
''
What happened, although months would pass before anyone figured it out, was that Lukis Anderson’s DNA had found its way onto the fingernails of a dead man he had never even met.''

''But van Oorschot’s paper also contained a vital observation: Some people’s DNA appeared on things that they had never touched.

In the years since, van Oorschot’s lab has been one of the few to investigate this phenomenon, dubbed “secondary transfer.” What they have learned is that, once it’s out in the world, DNA doesn’t always stay put.''


''To find out the prevalence of DNA in the world, a group of Dutch researchers tested 105 public items — escalator rails, public toilet door handles, shopping basket handles, coins. Ninety-one percent bore human DNA, sometimes from half a dozen people. Even items intimate to us — the armpits of our shirts, say — can bear other people’s DNA, they found.

The itinerant nature of DNA has serious implications for forensic investigations. After all, if traces of our DNA can make their way to a crime scene we never visited, aren’t we all possible suspects?''

But as advances in technology are solving some of these problems, they have actually made the problem of DNA transfer worse. Each new generation of forensic tools is more sensitive; labs today can identify people with DNA from just a handful of cells. A handful of cells can easily migrate.''

''The on-scene supervisor walked him through the house. Dressers emptied, files dumped. A cellphone in a toilet, pissed on. ''

''Police records showed that Austin belonged to a gang linked to a series of home burglaries. And most damning of all, Austin’s older sister, a 32-year-old sex worker named Katrina Fritz, had been involved with Raveesh for 12 years. Police had even found her phone backed up on Raveesh’s computer. Eventually she would admit that she had given her brother a map of the house.''

That’s an excellent article, thank you for posting it.

I had wondered if the DNA from whomever ironed the handkerchiefs in this murder was found on them. If you’ve ever ironed one or a cloth dinner napkin you’d know how much you have to handle it to get the edges properly pressed after it has been washed.

Maybe the killer did it himself, but like others have said it seems like some a detail a female in his life would have noticed and taken care of.

eta: dotr, could you please cross post this in the Sherman thread?

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Fantastic post, thank you.

What you're saying is very similar to discussions I've had with experts in the field. Essentially, it *could* mean this but it also could very well not mean it. And, as you say, it depends on when they were doing these analyses.

What I think is very pertinent is that on the TMPD info appeal (still live today) never mentions DNA in any way shape or form. As I posted last night, this case is not listed on their website as one where they think the killer fled abroad. If we excluded all reporting on this case and went only on police materials and press releases, there wouldn't be a huge amount pointing to a foreigner or even someone with international connections. There is mention of the shoes and their connection but that's about it. No mention of sand when discussing the hip bag, and so on.

Could this be that the DNA 'discovery' is now seen in a different light?

Could it be they simply want to keep information re: DNA back for themselves?

Could it be that as the DNA is in the process of being re-examined using modern techniques, they want to keep mention of it out of the spotlight?

I have no idea.

Why are the police asking about the tv schedule?
(Photo from LE’s link above).

 

[Captain Hastings]

The TV schedule could be important for two reasons. I believe the daughter was next door watching TV in till around 9.30pm? Also I have read that police used TV schedules to identify the timing of the 11.30pm thud that the neighbours heard. However I don't read Japanese and I don't think witness statements are available anywhere so I'm not sure if that info is totally accurate or not. I'm not even sure if the family next door claimed to be awake but didn't hear anything or asleep at the time of the attack. If anyone has any info on the witness testimony from the neighbors next door I'd be interested to read it.

 

[FacelessPodcast]

That’s an excellent article, thank you for posting it.

I had wondered if the DNA from whomever ironed the handkerchiefs in this murder was found on them. If you’ve ever ironed one or a cloth dinner napkin you’d know how much you have to handle it to get the edges properly pressed after it has been washed.

Maybe the killer did it himself, but like others have said it seems like some a detail a female in his life would have noticed and taken care of.

eta: dotr, could you please cross post this in the Sherman thread?

If the police found multiple DNA profiles, they've not said anything about it. It's also unlikely, just by the numbers, that if they had found a second profile on, say, the handkerchief, that it would be on the offender's database which is small compared to other countries.

And as discussed, beyond that, the TMPD can't really do much with DNA. Only match, 1 to 1.

But we do know that the theory he was a 'momma's boy' definitely floated early on. There was the food he had eaten in the toilet, the folded hankie. Also, his knowledge of the sanitary pads and how that might help him stem the blood flow. It's certainly not out of the question that he had a woman in his life in some way.

 

[FacelessPodcast]

Why are the police asking about the tv schedule?
(Photo from LE’s link above).

View attachment 392190

It's just a memory jog, that's what was on TV that night -- they're hoping it'll spark some recollection.

But as is often the way, the translation into English is terrible.

 

[Captain Hastings]

The mommas boy theory. If he was wearing his normal clothes, perhaps his mum had ironed his hankies etc. Would there not be more than one DNA match on his clothing? The killers mother and/or family members? If she is doing all of his clothes washing and handling etc? I don't know enough about DNA to know how likely that is.