Timeline of Events

Overview of the Timeline Structure

The timeline is divided into the following major stages:

• 1. August 24, 2010 — The initial medical accident Sudden myocardial infarction, PCI (coronary intervention), vascular injuries, concealed complications.
• 2. August 25–27 — Rapid deterioration Shock vitals, kidney/liver failure, unexplained anemia, lack of emergency surgery, no explanation of tamponade or bleeding.
• 3. August 28 — Sudden “recovery” after alleged pericardiocentesis Doctor’s explanation contradicts medical records.
• 4. Early September — Organ failure continues Mechanical ventilation, sedation removed, no awakening.
• 5. September 11–12 — Final deterioration and suspicious death Acute subdural hematoma appears on CT; doctor provides no explanation.
• 6. September 12 onward — Postmortem irregularities Copy-only death certificate, impersonated death notification, police claiming “judicial autopsy performed” (contradicted by records).
• 7. Late 2010–2011 — Police visits, inconsistent statements, lawyers’ refusal to act, evidence preservation process with irregularities.
• 8. 2012–2024 — Media contact attempts, social interference, long-term monitoring concerns.

The following sections present these events in detailed chronological order.

2010 — The Beginning of the Incident

• August 24, 2010 — Sudden myocardial infarction / Emergency transport
  Father was taken by ambulance to Toride Kyodo Hospital (now JA Toride General Medical Center). PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention) was immediately performed. Multiple complications occurred during the procedure:
  • coronary perforation,
  • contrast leakage outside the vessel,
  • coronary dissection,
  • possible ascending aortic injury.
  Despite these findings, the doctor later stated, “The PCI was successful.” No mention was made of bleeding or tamponade.
• August 25–26 — Rapid deterioration
  Severe hypotension, tachycardia, and metabolic acidosis persisted. Urine output dropped sharply. Blood tests showed progressive anemia with no documented source. No explanation of hemothorax or cardiac tamponade was provided to the family.
• August 27 — Critical condition
  Blood pressure 60/40 mmHg, HR 150–160. Doctor said: “The myocardial infarction is severe. There is no treatment available now.” No mention of pericardial effusion or tamponade. Urine output for the day: 20 ml.
• August 28 — Sudden “improvement”
  Blood pressure rose to 110/60 mmHg. The doctor explained for the first time:

  “He developed cardiac tamponade. We performed pericardiocentesis during the night.”

  Records suggest:
  • tamponade signs existed on 8/27 but were not mentioned,
  • the alleged “pericardiocentesis” may have been a chest drainage procedure,
  • cause cited as “oozing-type myocardial rupture” (not supported by PCI data).
• August 29 – September 3 — Organ failure continues
  Shock liver, shock kidney, persistent acidosis. Sedation maintained; mechanical ventilation ongoing. No neurological assessment documented.
• September 5 — Sedation discontinued
  Despite removal of sedatives, father did not awaken.
• September 9 — Extubation
  Father was extubated and removed from mechanical ventilation. Remained unresponsive.
• September 11 — Pre-terminal state
  Father opened his eyes but had no awareness. He exhibited facial tremors and labored breathing. We requested that the primary physician come to evaluate him. We asked:

  “Considering his shock on 8/27, the unexplained urine output, and the sudden improvement after the alleged drainage, is it not likely that tamponade was missed on 8/27?”

  The physician denied any oversight.
• September 12 — Final deterioration / suspicious death
  While undergoing whole-body CT (head/chest/abdomen), father went into cardiopulmonary arrest and died. CT imaging taken at the moment of death showed:
  • acute subdural hematoma,
  • hemothorax findings,
  • pericardial/mediastinal changes.
  The doctor explained: “The cause of death is DIC and sepsis.” No explanation of head trauma was provided.
  
  We declined hospital autopsy and requested a judicial autopsy. The responding police officer said: “Based on the inspection, judicial autopsy will be performed.”

2010 September–November — Police Interactions / Irregular Statements

• September 12 — At the hospital
  Police officer stated: “A judicial autopsy will be conducted.” However, no documentation confirming this was ever provided.
• September 14 — Police home visit
  Officer claimed:
  • “The judicial autopsy was performed.”
  • “There was no sign of medical error.”
  None of these claims matched the paperwork or later statements.
• November — Consultation with Lawyers A & B
  Both lawyers ignored medical evidence, dismissed contradictions, and discouraged pursuing any legal action.

2011 — Evidence Preservation and Judicial Irregularities

• February 8, 2011 — Court-ordered Evidence Preservation at the Hospital
  Multiple irregularities occurred:
  • Lawyers attempted to exclude the family from participation.
  • Attendance record listed the absent older son, but omitted the actually present younger son.
  • Judge removed CT/echo/PCI images from evidence, claiming “voluntary submission,” and none of the three lawyers objected.
  • When younger son pointed out missing ECGs, lawyer stopped him from speaking.
  • Nursing chief presented the ward log, lawyer dismissed it as “unnecessary” and returned it.
  • An unidentified man in a brown suit attended silently and was not listed in any official record.
  • Ventilator-setting record was found under another patient’s name. Court instructed “destroy by shredder”; lawyer accepted this without objection.
• June 10, 2011 — Consultation with Lawyers C & D
  They acknowledged PCI abnormalities but refused to:
  • discuss falsified death documents,
  • accept evidence of subdural hematoma,
  • support any criminal complaint.
• Late 2011 — Consultation with Lawyer E
  Lawyer E contradicted his own statements, refused to examine evidence, and urged the family to “give up the case.”

2012–2014 — Continued Attempts, Silence, and Contradictions

• 2012 — Follow-up consultations with Lawyer E
  Lawyer E’s statements shifted repeatedly:
  • initially acknowledged irregularities,
  • later denied all medical issues existed,
  • refused to view additional documents,
  • urged the family to “stop pursuing the matter.”
• 2012–2014 — Attempts to seek legal or investigative help
  No lawyer agreed to take the case. Approaches to medical safety organizations produced no results.
• 2013–2014 — Re-analysis of medical records by the family
  Independent review of:
  • PCI video,
  • nursing records,
  • CT images (showing acute subdural hematoma),
  • ECG, echo, and blood tests.
  The findings consistently supported: major complications during PCI → concealed → deterioration → suspicious death.

2015–2019 — Attempts to Contact Media & Social Interference

• 2015 — First set of media contact attempts
  Dozens of submissions to major newspapers, TV stations, weekly magazines. No investigative follow-up occurred.
• 2016–2017 — Social interference begins to appear
  Obstructions encountered in:
  • marriage-related activities (profile modification, impersonation),
  • business succession attempts (BATONZ irregular rejection),
  • access to certain online services.
• 2018 — International media outreach
  SecureDrop submissions to multiple foreign outlets. No response from any organization.
• 2019 — Repeated review of evidence
  The family reorganized all primary documents, confirming internal consistency of the timeline.

2020–2022 — Expanded Suppression, Communication Barriers

• 2020 — Postal mail problems
  A package sent to a media outlet was returned unsealed inside a plastic envelope with the note: “Delivered in this condition.” The family insists it was fully sealed at posting.
• 2020–2021 — SNS irregularities
  Attempts to share information on X (Twitter) appeared to be shadow-blocked: no impressions, no engagement, no external visibility.
• 2021 — Increased interference
  Reported:
  • account access problems,
  • unexplained disruptions to device operation,
  • online submission forms not functioning,
  • emails not reaching recipients.
• 2022 — Family continues independent investigation
  Organizing evidence, attempting international reporting again. No response from any outlet.

2023–2024 — Preparing for Disclosure

• 2023 — Technical preparation
  The family began building:
  • a dedicated disclosure website,
  • evidence archives,
  • data-integrity verification using hashes,
  • multi-site backups and offline storage.
• 2024 — Consolidation of case structure
  The family completed full organizational mapping:
  • medical accident → deterioration → suspicious death
  • falsified documents → impersonated death report
  • police contradictions → “judicial autopsy” fabrication
  • lawyers’ obstruction → evidence preservation irregularities
  • media blackout → social interference

2025 — Publication & Evidence-Based Disclosure

• 2025 — Launch of the disclosure website
  Creation of a comprehensive site to:
  • publish the timeline,
  • provide access to primary documents,
  • share medical and logical analysis,
  • present AI-assisted third-party evaluation.
• 2025 — English version released
  To reach international journalists, medical experts, and human rights organizations, full English translations of major pages were created.
• Ongoing — Collecting further evidence
  Additional documents, recordings, and logs continue to be indexed for independent verification.

Summary of the 15-Year Timeline

From 2010 to 2025, the evidence consistently supports the following structure:

• 1. A major medical accident occurred (PCI complications were concealed; no emergency surgery was arranged).
• 2. Deterioration was not properly managed (shock vitals, organ failure, unaddressed bleeding).
• 3. The final CT revealed acute subdural hematoma contradicting the hospital’s explanation.
• 4. Postmortem paperwork contained major falsifications (impersonated death notification, copy-only death certificate, charges inconsistent with judicial autopsy).
• 5. Police statements were contradictory and unsupported.
• 6. Evidence preservation was obstructed (missing images, destruction of ventilator record, exclusion of family participation).
• 7. Lawyers repeatedly avoided the core issues.
• 8. Media contact attempts were uniformly ignored.
• 9. Social interference gradually expanded.
• 10. The case remained suppressed for 15 years.

This timeline is provided so that investigators, journalists, lawyers, and medical experts can independently examine the consistency and evidentiary basis of the events.

Back to Home