前田氏（及び当職担当被疑者）に犯罪の疑いがないことの理由（事情）として把握したこと――その（５）――
実は、脅されたとされる４人は、犯行日とされる令和７年７月９日の午前１０時ころから午後４時ころまで６時間も、犯行場所と報道される（愛知県）安城市の事務所において、逮捕された前田氏その他の被疑者計６人と話合いや談笑をするなどしています。しかも、そのうちの午後２時ころから３時ころまでは、部外者であるQ（前田氏の個人事業の従業員）及びZ（別の露天商団体の人物）を交えた総計１２人で、一緒に弁当を食べているのです（ただし、Zは、Qが弁当の買出しに行った後で上記事務所に入室した関係で、弁当を食べることなく同席したものですが、Qと異なり、午後４時ころまで同席を継続しています。）。
真に現金を脅し取ろうとされたのであれば、加害者とされる６人と長時間にわたって談笑したり、しかも部外者２人まで交えて一緒に弁当を食べたりすることなどあり得ないはずです（驚くべきことに、愛知県警察は、弁当１１人分の領収書を押収してこの客観的事実を把握しながら、これを黙殺しようとしています。）。
X（旧Twitter）・Instagram・TikTok 始めました
アカウント名 AttorneyMINORU
2026.4.27 Conflict with Aichi Prefectural Police ⑦
Reasons (circumstances) that we have determined there is no suspicion of a crime against Mr. Maeda (and the suspects in our case) — Part (5) —
In fact, the four individuals who were allegedly threatened spent as long as six hours—from around 10:00 a.m. to around 4:00 p.m. on July 9, 2025, the alleged date of the offense—inside the office that is said to be the crime scene, engaging in discussions and casual conversation with Mr. Maeda and the other five suspects who were later arrested. Furthermore, from around 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. during that same period, a total of twelve people, including two outsiders—Q (an employee of Mr. Maeda’s sole proprietorship) and Z(a person from a different street vendor group)—ate boxed lunches together. However, because Z entered the office after Q had gone out to purchase the boxed lunches, he was present without eating a lunch himself, and—unlike Q—remained there until around 4:00 p.m.
In other words, if they had truly been subjected to an attempt to extort money, it would be inconceivable for them to spend long hours casually conversing with the six individuals alleged to be the perpetrators, let alone share boxed lunches together with two outsiders. (What is astonishing is that the Aichi Prefectural Police, despite having seized a receipt for eleven boxed lunches and thereby being aware of this objective fact, appear to be attempting to disregard it.)
