409
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 90 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 53 points 1 year ago

Maybe she wanted to get caught to have her own episode? It wouldn't be the first time something like that happened.

[-] RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.zip 60 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Wait... Do people not consider psychopathy and empathetic deficiencies mental illnesses? I sure do.

[-] ChexMax@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I think the defining feature is whether or not it negatively affects your daily life. Hers obviously did

[-] CowsLookLikeMaps@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

It's basically a copy paste of the whole "violent videogames make kids violent" clickbait for helicopter parents.

[-] stoy@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 year ago

Aren't psycopaths often quite arrogant of others abilities?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 year ago

The app she used to find the victim likely had enough of a digital trail to link back to her, so body disposal or no, she would likely have been investigated and caught sooner or later.

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Mac@mander.xyz 10 points 1 year ago

Someone who recently disappeared would have their meetups and messages gone through. She would have been investigated.

[-] stifle867@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

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

[-] wrath_of_grunge@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] VaultBoyNewVegas@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] stifle867@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah it was just a joke about the cliches of the true crime category. To be fair I don't watch true crime myself.

[-] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

That was probably why she did the things that would get her caught. It wouldn't be true crime if the criminal got away with it.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Like that old Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode

this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
409 points (98.1% liked)

News

23609 readers
3544 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS