Obara’s November 10 statement

Obara’s November 10 statement was a media-facing defense that turned an ongoing investigation into a public contest over how the alleged assaults should be understood. Sent by Obara’s lawyer at about six in the evening, it portrayed the accusations as disputes about paid sexual services rather than crimes, identified accusers by their initials, and acknowledged that Obara had at least met Lucie Blackman. Its importance lies not only in what Obara claimed, but in what the document did: it brought his version to the press, exposed the women to further scrutiny, and angered detectives already trying to question him.

Issuance and circumstances

The statement appeared while Obara was in custody and refusing to confess to killing Lucie Blackman. Police had searched the building where he took women and the surrounding area of Miura without finding her body, and had rearrested him on other sexual-assault charges in the hope that continued questioning might eventually break his silence. Against that background, the document was more than a retrospective explanation: it entered the public record during an active investigation.

Obara’s lawyer sent the statement to mass media on November 10. The narrator understood the admission that Obara had met Lucie as a means of making the document more likely to be reported. The statement thus balanced a limited concession against a much broader denial: it acknowledged contact with her, without admitting responsibility for her disappearance or death. Obara still did not confess to killing her.

Claims and omissions

The statement described Obara as having paid for sex with foreign women at pubs and hostess clubs, and having paid Japanese women who performed prostitution professionally or at a professional level. It characterized those encounters as consensual and argued that payment and permission meant he had not committed rape or sexual assault. This was Obara’s defense of his conduct, not an independent finding about the women’s experiences or the truth of his claims.

He identified his accusers by initials and accused them of being prostitutes, drug users, and liars. Naming them in this fashion made the defense personal: the document did not confine itself to answering allegations, but also attacked the credibility of the women who had made them. In one account concerning a woman identified as TM, Obara claimed that he had protected her from Issei Sagawa and had never paid her for sex. That exception did little to change the statement’s broader strategy of presenting the accusers through allegations about their character and circumstances.

The statement also addressed matters raised in reports about Obara, denying several claims about his conduct and public profile. It offered an explanation concerning the frozen remains of his dog found in a meat locker he owned, and discussed a tile in his apartment. Yet the detectives’ response emphasized a conspicuous omission: the document said nothing about the videotapes. The gap mattered because, in the investigators’ view, Obara had selected details that served his defense while leaving aside material central to their concerns.

Reaction and investigative consequences

The chief detective was furious that the statement discussed the victims. He believed the lawyer had been warned that writing about them could constitute criminal slander, and feared that the combination of the letter and press coverage would make their identities recognizable. He also objected to the timing: the statement had interrupted a critical interrogation so that the lawyer could meet with Obara. His response shows how the document’s public function collided with the police investigation and the need to protect the women from identification and further harm.

The statement also alerted readers to a planned large-scale police search. It said that mobile police forces and helicopters would be used to search places where Obara had lived within seven days. The detective rejected the announcement as unhelpful and objected to publicizing the operation. In this way, the statement did not merely defend Obara against accusations; it also disclosed information about anticipated investigative activity, adding another source of friction between the defense and the police.

Meaning and limits of the document

The narrator described the statement as a means of taunting the police and ridiculing the victims, and as evidence of Obara’s lack of shame. That is an interpretation of its effect and tone, not a confession of motive contained in the document. The detective’s anger, the naming of accusers, and the absence of any discussion of the videotapes provide the concrete basis for that reading. At the same time, the statement’s contents must remain distinct from established facts: its claims of consent and payment were Obara’s own assertions, and its accusations against the women were part of his public defense.

As a document, the statement reveals the pressure exerted by competing accounts before the investigation had resolved its central questions. Obara used the language of a transaction to deny criminal responsibility; the police saw a selective account that risked identifying victims and disrupted questioning. His acknowledgment of having met Lucie brought her into the statement without resolving what had happened to her. The document therefore made itself newsworthy while leaving the most consequential question unanswered.