In Defense of the Woodcutter
The woodcutter's account stands out because he is the one who discovers the body. His description is simple and does not seem to have any of the emotional bias seen in the other testimonies. He describes the state of the body, the position, and the items found around it (for example, a rope and a comb), but he makes no claim to have witnessed the actual events leading to the murder?. His testimony is important because it provides objective evidence and not just more speculation. What is also important is that he does not attempt to interpret the crime or place blamehe is just reporting what he has seen. This is helpful for when attempting to take an approach to justice.
In defending the woodcutter, I would take note of his impartiality in comparison to the other more emotionally charged testimonies. Tajomaru, the bandit, for example, gives a rather self-serving confession; the womans testimony is clouded by feelings of guilt and trauma, which also makes it suspect; and the deceased mans testimony (through a medium) presents a version filled with personal anguish may not be dependable based on the medium?. None of these accounts can be verified independently, but the woodcutters can be because it is consistent with the physical evidence. Thus, I would defend the woodcutter by pointing out how objective his claims are and how they correspond with the reality of what was found.
Justice, rather than revenge, requires evaluating facts over emotions and for restoring the balance that has been lost. The woodcutters neutral stance helps with that balance, since it is supported by physical clues. To avoid the pitfalls of subjective revenge, I would call for an analysis grounded in the woodcutters straightforward observations. There should be insistence on facts and consistency over emotional reactions. This would help to keep the legal process fair and focused on seeking truth instead of vengeance.
References
Akutagawa, Ry?nosuke. In a Grove. Translated by Takashi Kojima, 1922, pp. 1-7.
