A South Korean court has given a life sentence to a true crime fan who told police she murdered a stranger “out of curiosity”.
Jung Yoo-jung, 23, had been obsessed with crime shows and novels and scored highly on psychopath tests, police said.
Fixated with the idea of “trying out a murder”, she used an app to meet an English-language teacher, stabbing her to death at her home in May.
The brutal killing shocked South Korea.
Prosecutors had asked for the death penalty - a request typically reserved for the gravest of offences.
She was arrested after the taxi driver tipped off police about a customer who had dumped a blood-soaked suitcase in the woods.
She might have scored highly on psychopath tests, but it doesn’t sound like she scored highly on IQ tests.
You’d think a true crime addict would know what to do to be a little more discreet
Although I don’t even think you have to be a true crime addict to realize that taking a taxi to dispose of body parts is a ridiculously stupid idea.
She was discrete - there was exactly one of her, and one suitcase, and one victim. I think you might mean discreet.
I wonder if she wanted to kill someone’s because she was into true crime, or if she got into true crime because she already on some level wanted to kill someone. The latter is my guess.
I agree with you. Like violent videogames don’t turn people into murderers too. Though indulging in it might’ve amplified the murder tendencies?
Or someone with violent tendencies would enjoy indulging in violent videogames.
The weird thing about this to me is how someone who has watched all this crime stuff, which generally (at least the English ones I’ve seen) portrays the police as being competent and successful at catching criminals, doesn’t come up with a far more detailed plan to not get caught.
The interesting thing is she could genuinely have done a murder to see what it’s like, just as she wanted, and probably never gotten caught. If you murder someone with no motive, no connection to you, chosen at random, in a place not close to your home or place of work or any other frequently visited locations…the police have little to go on. As a fan of these shows, she would surely be aware of this. But instead she chose to do things that would basically guarantee she’s caught if the police are even minimally competent.
Maybe she wanted to get caught to have her own episode? It wouldn’t be the first time something like that happened.
Everyone here is getting tunnel vision. Person obsessed with true crime podcasts kills someone makes for a good headline but it’s not the reality. It should really say mentally ill person who happens to listen to podcasts kills someone.
Wait… Do people not consider psychopathy and empathetic deficiencies mental illnesses? I sure do.
From the sound of things, she wouldn’t have gotten caught if she hadn’t tried to dispose of the body. If she had just left after murdering the woman, it would have been much harder to solve the case.
I don’t think harder, but probably longer.
The article also says that she was caught on CCTV leaving and entering the house multiple times. Even if she left the body there, eliminating the need for her to make multiple “drop off” runs, she’d still be the last person seen entering the house and subsequent DNA evidence would be enough to convict.
The taxi driver reporting her to police just expedited how quickly she was caught. The crime would have likely been discovered as soon as the teacher failed to report in to work or to her next appointment. But if she hadn’t been reported so quickly, it would have given her more time to disappear.
She would have left a strand of hair at the scene that they DNA test then the whole case gets busted upon. That’s how it works in the shows anyway
if the shows are any indication, the hair strand won’t be tested, and innocent person will be charged, and in 20 years, they’ll figure it out after the innocent person basically became their own lawyer and found out about the hair, then managed to get the hair tested on their final appeal.
DNA testing is only useful if someone is already in the system, so long as the killer isn’t in the system then they need a sample from the killer somehow to compare the DNA. This is why if you’re interviewed formally by police at the station they offer you something to drink, so they can get fingerprints from the glass/cup and DNA from your saliva on the rim.
I don’t watch true crime because it always felt like exploitation to me.
He’s fucking HIS YOUNG HOT SECRETARY behind the mrs BACK with a scandalous entanglement. Mmm soon to be single wifey plots revenge by plunging a kitchen knife through mr. Infidelites cold dead heart… Ohhhhh yes how will she get away with killing the man she once called LOVER?.. tonight at 11:00
You mean that kind of exploitation?
Is that really what true crime is like? I’ve only seen more grounded things like Rob Dyke and Lordan Arts, but that sounds terrible.
Seems more like ‘reality’ crime.
I agree. But I still was fascinated with how people that do interrogations for a big part of their life deal with that experience. I mean, I got super grumpy with all people while doing pager/phone duty as a sysadmin.
I can’t imagine how I would feel about reality if I was dealing with people in those extremes.
I do watch true crime and I know what you mean, and I personally do struggle with whether it’s even ethical to watch it. No matter how respectfully they approach it and no matter how good their intentions may or may not be, even if the wanted to raise awareness for unsolved cold cases just in case people watching may have information, it still doesn’t change the reality that they are making a spectacle out of and directly profiting from someone else’s tragedy without their consent or knowledge.
Then you have truly disgusting people in the true crime space like this: https://nypost.com/2023/07/12/youtuber-slammed-for-charging-to-see-autopsy-photos-of-boy-11/
And then you have CBC, Canada’s national, State owned broadcasting service. They also have multiple true crime shows/podcasts, where they have reporters employed by the Canadian government interviewing police and investigators who are also employed by the Canadian government. There’s nothing wrong with that on its own, BUT, it gets infuriating sometimes because there have been cases where the reporters get really suspicious that a certain person did it and has dug up a ton of seemingly new evidence that supports it, and the police wouldn’t even comment on it, sound super apathetic when being told all this, and seem to have absolutely no intention to investigate further after the reporters brought their findings to them and gave them a bunch of (seemingly) new leads. Like if another government agency has already done half the work for you why would you not follow up? Is the goal of the government only to talk about horrific monsters that take the lives of their citizens and not to actually punish them and remove them from society? I suppose it’s possible that the police already investigated that avenue and ruled it out and are just not telling the reporters (and by extension the public), but if that’s the case why not just come out and say that so not only the suspected person’s name is cleared and also let the public know that they are indeed on top of the investigation?
I suppose it’s possible that the police already investigated that avenue and ruled it out and are just not telling the reporters (and by extension the public), but if that’s the case why not just come out and say that so not only the suspected person’s name is cleared and also let the public know that they are indeed on top of the investigation?
If they say they are investigating that way and it turns out the reporter was wrong, wouldn’t there be repercussions for the reporter?
If they say they are investigating that way and it turns out the reporter was right, wouldn’t it make a fair trial in front of a jury nearly impossible because of public image?
Korea even photoshops mugshots.
