Officer Sprinkle

He was also in the US Air Force Reserve. On 10/27/62 during the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy called up 24 Air Force Reserve units totalling 14,000 personnel. This six month call-up is what the NST notice means by"American military records."

The Seattle Police Department gave Sprinkle a six month leave for term of the call-up. This leave is referred to in the NS document as "Documents [sic] kept by the City of Seattle."

Following the Cuban matter, the Air Force assigned Sprinkle to a training unit in Texas (not basic training as the NS note indicates) and then to a field base near Seattle. From the base near Seattle he was able to "moonlight" in his regular job, while still earning credit for his six month tour in the reserves. During that time, he testified, he would pick up a badge and gun each time he reported for duty.

Of course, NST senior priests and members, in 1999, needed some reason to impeach Officer Sprinkle's testimony. So they first tried "guilt by association" by digging up his testimony in a corruption case (not aimed at him) and then by digging out these records that showed he had been part of the Cuban Missile crises. This was a man with a good record before he retired. They produced various "records" to "prove" that his testimony couldn't possibly true, since he wasn't in the service at the time. If you look at the timeline you see that they were cutting it pretty close by making this allegation.

Sprinkle returned to duty with the Seattle Police Department before the six months expired and was on duty the night of March 19-20, 1963. His service with the Seattle Police Department is a matter of public record and has been substantiated in court. His testimony about the incident with Nikken has been corroborated by two other officers at the time. Seattle Police personnel records completely document his service with their department. He also was married soon after the incident and so his memory of the time is very vivid.

Japanese courts do not accept testimony from witnesses without first establishing their bon-a-fides to give the testimony. In this case NS is offering partial evidence to try to discredit a witness- years after Sprinkle's testimony was accepted in court.

In the Seikyo Shimbun article one of the lawyers for the Gakkai compared NS's claim of "conclusive proof" and "decisive evidence" to earlier evidence NS submitted of road construction near the Seattle incident. At the time NS also claimed victory in the case. Temple members were then told how the Seattle incident was "conclusively proven" not to have happened. In fact, however, the road construction was irrelevant and the testimony about Nikken's involvement in the incident was confirmed and strengthened.

Sprinkle's credentials and record of employment with the Seattle Police Department were established early in the trial and was considered spotless. The allegations printed with the picture to the left are obviously false. They were trying to impeach his testimony by uniting two irrelevent facts. An interview by an investigative body is not evidence of corruption. The fact that he was questioned about his period of leaves has nothing to do with anything except NST's lame effort to impeach his character. His record with the Air Force Reserve is also not new information.

The witnesses were heard and evidence taken. The judge rendered a verdict that showed that the Gakkai had a case for the late Ms. Clows story.

One observer suggests that NS is using the courtroom to influence temple-members rather than their legal case. Since temple-members won't be exposed to all the evidence they are the target of this "conclusive proof." When the final decision goes badly for NS their members can be told they were cheated of justice. They wanted a different outcome in the trial, for members hearts.