[Editor Kim Hyo-jung] What is the truth behind the endless rumors?
On the August 8 broadcast of SBS's "Unanswered Questions", the show tracked down the murder case of a woman in her 60s in Tongyeong.
In the early hours of June 10, a horrific murder took place in a rural village in Tongyeong, Gyeongsangnam-do.
A woman in her 60s, surnamed Seo, who owned a detached house, was murdered inside her home. The victim, who was stabbed in the neck with a weapon, was found to have died without being able to put up much resistance, eliciting deep sorrow.
However, about two months have passed since the incident, and the perpetrator has yet to be arrested. As a result, not only the villagers but the local community are gripped with anxiety.
In response, the police promised a reward of 100 million won for a decisive tip, but there have been no tips capable of pinpointing a suspect.
The only clue regarding the culprit, who left no DNA or fingerprints anywhere at the scene, was captured by a single CCTV camera illuminating the rose tunnel outside the house.
However, because the intruder was wearing a hat and a mask, their face could not be properly identified.
The culprit, who broke in at 12:22 AM and fled about 1 hour and 50 minutes later, leisurely disappeared taking the weapon used in the crime, the victim's handbag, and a safety terminal.
Afterwards, the culprit vanished without being captured by any other CCTV cameras in the village.
Consequently, police presumed that the perpetrator was well-acquainted not only with the village geography and CCTV locations but also with the victim, and investigated the victim's past feuds, but found no grounds to specify a suspect.
Following this, various rumors circulated, including contract killing and robbery-murder, with rampant speculation that the culprit might be a foreigner or an acquaintance. However, amid the various rumors and tips, the truth grew increasingly distant.
Two days prior to the incident, the victim's husband, who had been suffering from sleep deprivation after being hospitalized following a sinus surgery, returned home and fell into a deep sleep, failing to notice the intruder's presence. In particular, the separate annex where the husband was sleeping was completely isolated from the crime scene, adding to the regret.
Police guessed that the person who turned on the hallway light for just two minutes while staying at the scene was someone very familiar with the victim's house. In response, one informant suspected an electrical technician previously hired by the victim.
The victim had been personally involved in the construction of the detached house by hiring technicians. During this process, there had been friction with this electrical technician. Police investigated him as well, but excluded him from the list of suspects given that he was in his late 50s and usually wore glasses.
Police also investigated all foreign nationals in the vicinity. However, no clues regarding the culprit emerged from anywhere.
The broadcast analyzed the CCTV footage alongside video analysis experts, concluding that the culprit was estimated to be in their mid-170s in height and wearing shoes with a unique pattern.
Through a footwear expert, they were even able to identify the model of the shoes worn by the culprit. It was revealed to be a product that is no longer sold and was popular among people in their 30s and 40s. Additionally, clues were found through their gait suggesting that only their right foot might be flat-footed.
At the time of her death, the victim had her husband's belt wrapped around her hand. This led some to speculate whether the target might have been the victim's husband, but the search for anyone harboring a grudge against the husband also failed.
An expert analyzed the culprit taking away the weapon used, stating, "It is clearly someone with a criminal record in robbery and theft." They also estimated that the hallway light was turned on by the victim, not the culprit, at which point she fell victim.
The expert warned, "If it were a matter of grudges or something like that, suspects would have been narrowed down long ago. You have to look at the case by focusing on a robbery-murder involving someone with local familiarity and ties. If the direction of the investigation gets derailed, it's a waste of time and the possibility of a resolution becomes increasingly dim."
The broadcast revealed an AI-corrected montage of the suspect alongside an expert. The suspect was estimated to be a male in his 20s to 30s, or at most early 40s, with a slender face and arched eyebrows. In particular, he was estimated to have prominent cheekbones, strong nose and lip lines, and a wide gap between the heads of his eyebrows.
In addition, he was estimated to be an individual with a criminal record in robbery and theft who either did not know the victim or had briefly crossed paths with her, lived in the area for a considerable period, and lived or worked where he could hear about the victim's recent updates through rumors.
Furthermore, it was analyzed that the belt wrapped around the victim's hand was an attempt by the culprit to bind her. The possibility was also raised that the individual may not have known the exact location of the CCTV cameras at the victim's house, but knew only partially.
Finally, the broadcast drew attention by pointing out, "The more we try to adapt and embellish the purpose of the crime to fit the results left at the scene, the higher the likelihood that the conclusion will head toward an unsolved case. Amplifying the culprit like a killer seen only in movies might just be someone's excuse for missing him."
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.