Japan Today
crime

30 year-old woman arrested after body of newborn baby found in cemetery in Tochigi

39 Comments

Police in Nasushiobara, Tochigi Prefecture, on Wednesday arrested a 30-year-old woman on a charge of abandoning a body after the corpse of a newborn baby girl was discovered in the cemetery of a temple.

According to police, sometime in early March, the woman, Miho Sakauchi, abandoned the body of her newborn girl at the cemetery at Myounji Temple, Fuji TV reported. The remains of the infant were spotted partially buried by a temple visitor on Tuesday.

Police quoted Sakauchi, who is unemployed, as saying her daughter died soon after birth at home and that she took the body to her family's plot at the temple cemetery.

Police said Sakauchi lived with her husband, their two other children, and her parents, but her family told police they didn't even know she was pregnant.

© Japan Today

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

39 Comments
Login to comment

Okay, if that is how you feel, so be it. Have a great day. Nice debating with you!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look all over TV and you will get the same story I got.

Woman had baby.

Family had no idea she was pregnant.

Woman buries baby in cemetery.

Nothing in there discounts the possibility that she didn't know she was pregnant. It could fit in with those three facts.

I just dont buy the nonsense that women get pregnant and dont know about it. I think it is a farce to get attention. Call me cold, but when babies are in the Mommas stomach they do a lot of moving. Yes, women may miss their special times of the month for a month to even three or four but they know something is up. Let me repeat. Babies move. Holidays are skipped. I am not buying it for a minute.

So you're one of those people who says "I'm not a scientist but...", then goes on to say something counter to what scientists - who study the matter - say.

Cryptic pregnancy

Cryptic pregnancy is a condition in which a pregnant woman is unaware of her pregnancy until reaching labour.[1] Reasons the woman may be unaware of the pregnancy may include the woman being on weight-affecting medication, having regular menstrual bleeding, a lack of symptoms of pregnancy, and the fetus being unusually small.

Cryptic pregnancy is in contrast to denial of pregnancy, where the woman is subconsciously aware of her pregnancy, but denies its existence. It is estimated that "1 in 450 doesn't know her [pregnancy] status until week 20 or later (more than halfway through the pregnancy), and 1 in 2,500 is oblivious until she actually goes into labor.[2] "

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_pregnancy

You may not want to believe it doesn't exist, but that doesn't change the fact that it does.

And my disclaimer: I'm not saying this woman went through this or not, I'm saying that we don't know if she did or not from the article, and because of this and any number of things that could either be incorrect in the article, or missing altogether, it's not right to judge her guilty before she's had a trial to determine whether or not she's guilty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I will only cede to you this; I did not see the article about the woman NOT knowing she was pregnant. That is all. And know you have not proven your point at all. You only proved that I missed that ONE article. Otherwise, what is written here is that the woman's family did not know that she was pregnant. Look all over TV and you will get the same story I got.

Woman had baby.

Family had no idea she was pregnant.

Woman buries baby in cemetery.

This is what is being reported all over the Japanese news on the subject. If these three points are true, and I am pretty sure they are because they are all saying the same story. Then the woman did not want to keep the baby. Would she have not told her family about the baby being still born even if she did not know about being pregnant after giving birth? Logic say, YEP!!! And I am sorry, but as a parent and being someone who has known many pregnant woman in my life, I just dont buy the nonsense that women get pregnant and dont know about it. I think it is a farce to get attention. Call me cold, but when babies are in the Mommas stomach they do a lot of moving. Yes, women may miss their special times of the month for a month to even three or four but they know something is up. Let me repeat. Babies move. Holidays are skipped. I am not buying it for a minute.

And nobody is getting hysterical. I dont know where you get that from.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ever put your foot in your mouth and wish you could pull it out? IHmmmm That would be me right now. My mistake there! Sorry. I must have missed that story, but just saw it. I tried posting that I had seen it, but JT does not allow consecutive postings here. I still am wondering if that is possible, but I shall shut my mouth on this POINT of the subject. LMFAO!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are you talking about the Canada airlines flight the other day? WRONG! Her husband her knew she was pregnant.

Someone needs to tell him that he knew then, because he doesn't seem to know:

"I couldn't imagine, this just happened completely unexpectedly. It turned out we have a little baby, beautiful girl,"

Someone needs to tell her too, because even she thinks she didn't know she was pregnant:

"I said to her, 'Did you not feel anything inside?' and she said 'No, every once in a while I felt gas or rumblings in there' but never thinking it was a baby in there,"

source:http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/calgary/air-canada-passenger-gives-birth-to-girl-on-flight-to-japan-1.3069159

I am sorry, I am just not buying it. You are actually the one coming up with as many reasons as possible to believe that the article is wrong.

The fact that I'm able to come up with so many alternative possibilities proves my point - there isn't enough information in the article to be able to definitively make a judgement on this woman. And due to the fact that we as society have chosen to presume innocence until proven guilty, it's not right to presume this woman's guilt.

I am sorry but you are reaching way too much. Have a great day.

No, I'm showing why we have due process rather than reacting hysterically to news articles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are you talking about the Canada airlines flight the other day? WRONG! Her husband her knew she was pregnant. Canada Airlines allowed her to fly because she was under 36 weeks. I am sorry, I am just not buying it. You are actually the one coming up with as many reasons as possible to believe that the article is wrong. I am sorry but you are reaching way too much. Have a great day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ Strangerland. (Jaw dropped to the floor) Please forgive me for this. I am not trying to step into a woman's shoes, but there is that little visitor that comes around once a month. Now, I do know that women do miss their visitor for a month, two maybe three, but NINE? Ummmmm. I think anyone would have run to the doctor if they had skipped more than three months.

I used to date a girl who only got her period once every 4-6 months. It happens. Also, some girls can have spotting even when they are pregnant, and mistake this for their period.

Also, she would have to be an extremely large woman for you not to notice that she is with child and then there is the baby that moves around a lot during the last trimester.

She was pregnant and nobody who lived with her knew. So it can't have been that obvious.

And as amazing as it may seem, women do give birth without knowing they were pregnant. It happened on an airplane just the other day.

I am very sorry but I have a really, really ridiculous hard time believing that she did not know that she was pregnant. And once again, you are reaching.

I'm not reaching for anything. I have no idea if the woman knew she was pregnant or not, and I haven't claimed she didn't know. I'm simply pointing out another possibility, as a reason why it's best not to jump to conclusions when reading a news article.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@ Strangerland. (Jaw dropped to the floor) Please forgive me for this. I am not trying to step into a woman's shoes, but there is that little visitor that comes around once a month. Now, I do know that women do miss their visitor for a month, two maybe three, but NINE? Ummmmm. I think anyone would have run to the doctor if they had skipped more than three months. Also, she would have to be an extremely large woman for you not to notice that she is with child and then there is the baby that moves around a lot during the last trimester. I am very sorry but I have a really, really ridiculous hard time believing that she did not know that she was pregnant. And once again, you are reaching. And this reach is a long one. Sorry.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Oh yeah, once again someone reads the news and makes it look like the entire country is doomed. Japanese parents are deranged so time to export them huh?

Well you have to admit that if the article in the crime section isn't about a J-Cop sexually harassing some woman or taking upskirt photos, then there's a 90% likelihood that the article is some family member assaulting/strangling/tossing out the window/killing another family member. Japan is a VERY safe country... if you're a tourist and don't live with family there. If you're living with family... good luck. You'll need it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

She may not have known she was pregnant.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Unfortunately it is difficult to believe that she wanted to keep the child if she did not even tell her family about being pregnant. This is the sticking issue for me. This is biggest sign for me that she did not have any intention of keeping the baby. It just does not make a bit of sense to me that she would want the baby but keep it a secret. Hopefully this is not true. Anyway, RIP little one.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

i also tire of reading these macabre stories. And the ongoing argumants about how representative they are of Japanese parents in general. good place to try and hide her tragedy though.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sandie - quoting from one of the posters: "A baby just doesn't die from birth like that, especially since this was likely not a pre-term birth. I work in the medical field..." And then there are all the other posters who said she must have killed the baby. I don't think she did considering she has two other kids. I would bet that most cases of infanticide are to the first child (hopefully only child) of the killer.

Maybe she wanted to surprise the husband with two nice birthday gifts - a good Kobe beef (which to me is an oxymoron) dinner, and a new kid. The kid thing didn't work out, so she buried her. The hubby still gets the Kobe beef dinner, and the family is none the wiser.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I still feel though that to presume that the article may be faulty is probably worse than presuming that it is correct.

I'm not presuming the article is faulty, I'm accepting of the fact that it may be. This is the exact reason why they try to find juries who have not heard about the case in the media. The media taints the story, and can lead a jury to presume guilt, when none exists. The information in a news article is written by a third party who has not done a full investigation, and is simply reporting what they are told by other parties, who are almost never under any oath or obligation to tell the truth. News articles are written with the priority on expediting the story, rather than accuracy, so as to inform the public as soon as possible. As such, news articles are an unreliable source of information when it comes to determining guilt or innocence, and therefore it's worse to assume that all the facts in an article are correct, rather than potentially faulty.

We are given said information, whilst you are saying this could be incorrect and there is nothing to support that.

Sure there is. Often initial facts turn out to be false, or incorrect, or correct, but with additional information. This happens all the time.

I feel you may be assuming a bit more than we are. If we accept what is written is mostly true in this case, then it is quite damning to say the least.

Sure, if you accept what is written is true. But neither you nor I nor any other reader knows how accurate it is, and therefore none of us have enough information to presume guilt or innocence in the matter.

However, I applaud you for your enlightened point of view. It is refreshing.

Thanks!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@ Jalapeno - It is not laughable. Nobody said that all babies born survive at all. And your premise;

The woman has two of her own kids, so why would she want to kill the third, unless she didn't like how the baby looked or something.

does not hold much water either. If her own family had no idea, which includes her own husband, that she was pregnant, it says that she did not want the baby anyway.... One can assume that she did not even go for prenatal care either. Kept it a secret from her family, tells me that she most likely never even visited the doctor. I am assuming of course. Let's do a role play here and see if it makes any sense. Let's assume that she wanted the child.... How would that conversation look?

A: Hi, honey. I'm home. B: Oh, great. How was your day dear? A: Pretty good. How about yours? B: Well, I went to the grocery store and did some shopping. We are going to have Kobe beef for dinner. A: That's nice. I love Kobe beef. B: By the way, I have another little surprise!! We have a new baby! Her name is ~. A: Oh, that's wonderful. What a wonderful unexpected surprise. You never cease to amaze me.

Now, I am not making a joke out of the horrific situation. What I am trying to say here is simply, this is not like going out buying steak and surprising the family with a good Kobe beef steak dinner. This is something that you tell your family about if you want to have the child. If not, than you have an abortion. And the last I heard the father of the child has to sign a document giving the mother the right to exercise that right to have an abortion of the child. People who want to keep their babies tell the family about it. Parents, children and especially HUSBAND!!! But she did not, if this story is true.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's laughable that so many of you think all babies born survive. Google the word "stillborn," will ya?

The woman has two of her own kids, so why would she want to kill the third, unless she didn't like how the baby looked or something. She also buried her in a cemetery rather than just drop her in a dumpster, so maybe she was distraught over the death and just wanted her daughter to have a proper burial. Yeah, sounds like the woman's got a few screws loose, but I've read far worse other cases.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Exactly, gogogo! But as Strangerland said, we are not sure of all the facts just yet.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Police said Sakauchi lived with her husband, their two other children, and her parents, but her family told police they didn’t even know she was pregnant.

Why would you hide you are pregnant when you are married with other kids?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Strangerland. Agreed on all points, except the hysteria one. You are right it is not the gospel, we are just responding to what has been written. I still feel though that to presume that the article may be faulty is probably worse than presuming that it is correct. We are given said information, whilst you are saying this could be incorrect and there is nothing to support that. I feel you may be assuming a bit more than we are. If we accept what is written is mostly true in this case, then it is quite damning to say the least. However, I applaud you for your enlightened point of view. It is refreshing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

if a woman is going to have a baby and plans to keep it, does she or does she not tell her family about it? Seems pretty clear that she had no intention of keeping the baby at all. If one does not tell ones family about a baby on the way and the baby dies, she buries it, then it is not too much of a leap to figure that she might have done the unthinkable. Proof is sometimes in your actions. And these seem pretty clear.

Your whole premise is based on two things:

1) All details in the article are correct

2) All relevant details are in the article

Back in the homeland, I was privy to 'the other side' of two issues that made the newspaper, in which people I knew were condemned by the media, and everyone who read the articles. Knowing the other side of it, I saw that in both cases there were incorrect 'facts' stated in the article, and that other relevant facts were not made known to the media, and therefore were not in the article.

People read the news as if it's the gospel truth, but it's not. Condemning people based on a news article goes against the principles we've declared are required as a society - innocence until proven guilty, and the right to a trial. It's irresponsible, and frankly, hysteric.

in reality most of the people on the so called witch hunt here are tired of seeing people kill their kids.

Fair enough - I am too. I hate it. if/when these people are declared guilty, I hope that the sentencing accurately reflects their crimes. I can't imagine killing ones own child/children, there are few crimes more horrifying.

But that all said, we don't know that the woman in this article killed her own kid. The way the article is written, it would appear as if that's the case. But the article may be written poorly, or there may be incorrect details, or there may be other mitigating factors that have not been reported. None of us readers knows all the details, and therefor it's irresponsible to declare guilt or innocence as such.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Very true on most points, Strangerland, however, if a woman is going to have a baby and plans to keep it, does she or does she not tell her family about it? Seems pretty clear that she had no intention of keeping the baby at all. If one does not tell ones family about a baby on the way and the baby dies, she buries it, then it is not too much of a leap to figure that she might have done the unthinkable. Proof is sometimes in your actions. And these seem pretty clear. Maybe the family did not want another child. Maybe she was raped or had an affair. But since she seems to have had to kids already with the father, it would seem logical that she would tell him about the pregnancy so that he could be prepared. It is not too hard to understand that this baby was not wanted in the first place. And in reality most of the people on the so called witch hunt here are tired of seeing people kill their kids.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I was pointing out that people here always judge without knowing the actual circumstance. The situation Kitty brought up is as much a possibility as what you have brought up. This is why we have trials and inquisitions, to find the truth from the facts. It's also why we presume innocence until guilt is proven. Yet so many people on this site need to blame someone for everything, and presume guilt before innocence, without a trial.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

My apologies Strangerland. The comment below seemed to me as if you were doing just that.

But that's what people do here. They get hysteric and go on witch hunts. Some ALWAYS has to be blamed. Always.

You were agreeing with Kitty on here statements that...

So many assumptions based on the modern assumption that most babies survive natural birth. She was alone, no doubt very scared, very afraid that a judgemantal society would find out, and I am sure very distressed at losing her baby. A scenario that has been played out since the begining of time, no need to be so quick to vilify.

Sounds like you were agreeing with Kitty there, and Kitty seemed to be making an excuse for what the woman did to me. Sorry, if I misunderstood the obvious agreement with her statement of making excuses for the mother. I will be more careful in what I write in the future.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I think that you Kitty and Strangerland are making too many excuses for the obviously guilty party here

I haven't made any excuses for anyone.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Um, before you go witch hunting on others and placing blame on everyone else but the person who is most guilty, read carefully.

Police said Sakauchi lived with her husband, their two other children, and her parents, but her family told police they didn’t even know she was pregnant.

She was not alone at all. Three adults were there. Are you trying to say that the woman intended on keeping the baby after it was born? If that were true she would have told everyone that she was pregnant in the first place!!! It is not an assumption that most babies survive natural child birth at all, it is a fact. And if that were true, once again, don't you think she should have told her family that she was pregnant and have taken the necessary precautions to insure that the child be safely born? I think that you Kitty and Strangerland are making too many excuses for the obviously guilty party here, but I guess having babies at home, not telling their families, doctors or anyone else about the baby on the way is just what people do here. Hmmm, I dont think that is correct either.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A scenario that has been played out since the begining of time, no need to be so quick to vilify.

But that's what people do here. They get hysteric and go on witch hunts. Some ALWAYS has to be blamed. Always.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So many assumptions based on the modern assumption that most babies survive natural birth. She was alone, no doubt very scared, very afraid that a judgemantal society would find out, and I am sure very distressed at losing her baby. A scenario that has been played out since the begining of time, no need to be so quick to vilify.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

WOW! Somebody is a huge liar in this story!! Obviously this women killed her baby. Especially because her family had no idea that she was even pregnant. Common sense says that it would be a big deal in any household if someone was going to have a baby and I seriously doubt that she was trying to surprise her family with the news AFTER the baby was born! She fully intended on not keeping this child. So sad. RIP little one.

Now, can people just stop killing their babies, toddlers and little ones for a while? WTF is going on here? This country needs some serious psychology visits!! Things are getting wacky.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I dont know what is more jaw dropping - that she could "hide" a pregnancy for 9 months, kill her own child through negligence or homicide, bury her own daughter herself, that her husband didnt even notice his wife was pregnant (what kind of relationship must THAT be?) or that people are thumbing down Disillusioned for having the stones to tell it like it is.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

DaDude: Thanks for putting things in perspective.

Crime section folks... crime section. Stating the obvious here, but you won't read about good parents in the news. Just the bad ones.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

looks like kids in Japan dont have really too much to worry when walking home alone, compared to the risks of deranged parents at home.

Oh yeah, once again someone reads the news and makes it look like the entire country is doomed. Japanese parents are deranged so time to export them huh?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

A baby just doesn't die from birth like that, especially since this was likely not a pre-term birth. I work in the medical field and this story is more likely to be a case of murder or negligent homicide. And it's just as criminal that she gave birth at home alone, which is classified as negligence since there needs to be supporting people during childbirth.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Steve: "Can we at least have a 24 hour break between mothers killing their children. Husband didnt know she was pregnant. Something seriously not right here. Ok lets wait for the next installment."

Amen. And I really can't understand these families that have no idea someone is pregnant.

Jalapeno: "Steve, she didn't say she killed the kid, just that she died at birth."

I'd bet you a million she killed the kid, if not 'only' by killing it from leaving it to die. There's no way she had the kid -- her family still non-the-wiser, tried to raise it for a bit with, again, the family not knowing, and then it died naturally and she, unknown bundle in hand, snuck out and tried to bury it. She killed it, one way or another. Hope she rots in prison for the disposal of a corpse if not anything else... but this is Japan. She'll pay a small fine, and about THAT the family will know, I'm sure, since they'll have to front her the money.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@ jalapeño - she didn't say she killed the kid, just that she died at birth.

You just hang on one flipping minute there! She had the kid at home in secret. How do you think the baby died? If she didn't intentionally kill it (which I am sure she did), she is still responsible for the baby's death by not seeking medical attention during the birth. She killed the kid and tossed it out like last nights scraps! She is just a cold-hearted monster! Another one!

-4 ( +2 / -5 )

I really don't like being sickened by these kinds of stories daily.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Steve, she didn't say she killed the kid, just that she died at birth.

As for the family not knowing she was pregnant, it's possible they're just covering up for her, or they just thought she gained a few kilos.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

looks like kids in Japan dont have really too much to worry when walking home alone, compared to the risks of deranged parents at home. the suicide rate may be going down but the mental health of many Japanese is of serious concern

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Can we at least have a 24 hour break between mothers killing their children. Husband didnt know she was pregnant. Something seriously not right here. Ok lets wait for the next installment.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites