In the Know with Purplenette
On April 2, 2013, the Western Police Station announced that Park Shi Hoo will be remanded to the prosecution.
Following this statement Park Shi Hoo’s law firm, PURME filed a petition with the Civil Rights Commission and National Police Agency Inspector-General against Western Police Station.
PURME issued a press release earlier: “To remand our client to the prosecution based on the police comments can hardly be convincing” and they pointed out the problems that took place in the course of the police investigation of the Park Si Hoo incident.
PURME pointed out the leaks that continuously flowed from Western Police Station which violated the “neutral position of law enforcement agencies. Western Police Station has been adverse to Park Si Hoo from the start and favorable to complainant A by not protecting the secrecy of the criminal investigation. They have leaked confidential information to the media, in the process of which they have trampled on the basic human rights of the accused, completely ignoring the constitutional presumption of innocence.”
Following is a list of Western Police Station’s “time-phased leaks of facts-of-a-suspected-crime”:
1. Western Police Station time-phased disclosures:
(1) Feb 18, 2013 - Three days after receiving the complaint from Trainee, they made public Park Si Hoo’s name.
(2) Feb 20, 2013 - Disclosed “Trainee was carried piggyback into ParkSi Hoo’s apartment” – released CCTV evidence.
(3) Feb 22, 2013 - “Park Si Hoo rape allegations – suspicion of drugs”. Aroused urgent emotions, so results were announced on a weekday.
(4) Feb 25, 2013 - Attendance requirements: would request an arrest warrant should Park Si Hoo fail to attend disseminated in the media.
(5) Feb 26, 2013 - Medico-legal institute analysis revealed there was no drugs in Trainee’s blood and urine samples, but they said that would not have a significant impact on the investigation and expressed the position that sometimes rare drug ingredients could not be detected.
(6) March 7, 2013 - In spite of having submitted all cell phone records of Park Si Hoo and junior Kim to Western Police Station, such data were ignored. Meanwhile Trainee had deleted records on her cell phone which was to be restored. Park Si Hoo and Kim had to submit all their cell phone call records and Kakao Talk records without deleting any message, and they did not in any way exercise the privilege of entertainers.
(6) March 8, 2013 - The Kakao Talk is the most important in the context of the sexual intercourse. Immediately after the contents went public, the police said: “Kakao Talk information alone is difficult to determine everything.”
(7) March 11, 2013 - An interview was given about Park Si Hoo’s DNA detected in Trainee’s body. It is natural for DNA to be detected in the body after sexual intercourse, but it was given as evidence of rape to the press.
(8) March 22, 2013 - “Lie detector results are FALSE” –confidential investigation information was distributed to the media.
(9) March 22, 2013 - “Prosecution of opinion Park Si Hoo would be remanded”, “Reviewing request for an arrest warrant” — all over the media.
The PRUME law firm believes that all of the above prove that the non-neutral position of law enforcement agencies has not been observed.
2. Report on the damage of the judgment of the police report of Trainee’s acts
MBC reported: “The police decided to give Trainee a drug test and not to pursue her ‘financial interests’ in the matter.”
The defense attorneys question whether it is not impossible for Trainee to take a drug at the beginning and aim at settlement money later. It is the situation supporting this that a story of a large amount of settlement money is given immediately after the accusation.
3. The opinion of the counsel for the prosecution representing the plaintiff’s position after the incident, as well as the cross-examination, was advantageous to the plaintiff. This is very suspicious and the authenticity of the complainant’s statement is very doubtful.
The defense attorneys state that remanding Park Shi Hoo to the prosecution based on the police comments can hardly be convincing. We will make every effort to defend our client in revealing the substantial truth of this case.
Credit to ([[email protected]][email protected][/email]) cr.parksihoo4u
Regarding the lie detector information:
On March, 22, 2013, Sportsseoul.com reported that the Metropolitan Police Agency said that Park Shi Hoo failed every single question on the polygraph test and that there is “no chance” that he will be acquitted, and an arrest warrant would be used if needed.
Shortly after Park Shi Hoo’s lawyers accused the sources of spreading false rumors.
A spokesperson of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency said regarding the polygraph test “it isn’t our official announcement, and we don’t know who said such a thing…it’s ridiculous to decide whether someone’s guilty or not based on polygraph.”
OK. So, I have some confusion, because they say that the police leaked that Park Shi Hoo's lie detector test was false. However, they also said that the leaked information wasn’t true. I don’t know now if he passed the lie detector test or not, because of this. Did the police leak a lie??? Or are they mad because the police leaked the truth and it is detrimental to Park Shi Hoo???
I also talked to someone about the Korean legal system, because I have no clue. She said that all cases like this are remanded to the prosecution for them to decide to pursue. The police collect the information and the prosecution decides if it is worth prosecution. Another friend said that this case was going to go to the prosecution regardless of what information the police collected, because it is a high profile case and that the police department didn’t want the responsibility.
I guess that just because Park Shi Hoo’s case is remanded to the prosecution doesn’t make him guilty.
Oh and BTW...What the heck is semi-rape??? I thought a person was either raped or not raped. How can a person be semi-raped?
UPDATE:
Police also forwarded the case of Park Si Hoo′s junior Kim to prosecution under indecent assault charges.
The Police said, "The Kakao Talk conversation ParkSi Hoo turned in [to undermine the accuser′s testimony] cannot be said to be important in the case."
Police also said "Wehave also discovered no objective evidence to support the suspicions of conspiracy or the existence of a mastermind. The cases filed by the accused and related persons will be forwarded following separate investigations," the rep said.
Source: Omona They Didn't
