Yoon Ji Oh Calls Out Prosecutor For Doubting Her Testimonies About Jang Ja Yeon's Case

Apr 04, 2019

Yoon Ji Oh, a witness to Jang Ja Yeon’s sexual assault case, has responded to the claims made by prosecutor A, who was in charge of the investigation surrounding the document left behind by the late actress.

On April 3, Yoon Ji Oh uploaded a screenshot of a news outlet interview with prosecutor A.

A told the outlet that it was difficult to believe Yoon Ji Oh’s testimonies because they had inconsistencies and contradictions. The prosecutor further claimed that Yoon Ji Oh was unable to remember what the assaulter was wearing and said, “The press states that Yoon Ji Oh is the only witness, but at the time, there was Yoon Ji Oh, Jang Ja Yeon, Mr. Cho (former Chosun Ilbo reporter who was indicted on charges of sexually assaulting Jang Ja Yeon), and three to four other people. Those three to four other people are saying different things from Yoon Ji Oh, and even those who were much closer to Jang Ja Yeon have said, ‘I have not heard about [her] providing sexual favors or being sexually assaulted.'”

Below is the full translation of Yoon Ji Oh’s response on Instagram:

Not a day passes by quietly. Hey, prosecutor A. If you carried out the investigation poorly, please take part in the interview with your real name. I remember you as the prosecutor at the one investigation in which I identified a different person as the assaulter and the prosecutor who kept bringing up the shoe color during the hypnotic investigation.

Was I the one who identified the suspect? When I was first shown the photos, the current defendant’s (Mr. Cho’s) photo was not there, so I could not identify him. I remembered the suspect as someone who works in journalism. The police pegged a suspect based on the suspects’ business cards, so that’s why I consistently named him as the suspect in my testimonies. The current defendant then came, and I thought ‘He’s finally here.’ The person in my memory was the same, but the person I identified changed.

To start off, I couldn’t choose [the suspect] because I wasn’t given proper information about the suspects, and the police selected the suspect based on their business cards. [You’re saying] I identified someone else after the [previously chosen suspect’s] alibi was proven? It doesn’t even make sense to tell me about the alibi, and you should not be doing so.

Why are you taking part in the interview anonymously and telling me to take responsibility when you’re the one that carried out the investigation poorly? It wouldn’t even be enough to receive an apology from the prosecutor that was in charge of the poor investigation, so I’m feeling very unpleasant and insulted.

My testimony about the individuals and situation is the only one that’s consistent, and the testimonies of the other witnesses and defendant are wrong. I first said I wasn’t there, and then I corrected myself because it fit with the alibi. The lie detector detected a lie, but it was used as reference, not evidence, and the countless hypnotic investigations I underwent should be used as reference, not evidence. I talked about the color of the shoes while hypnotized, and I was obviously not able to remember the shoe color after waking up. Isn’t it less credible that I would remember something I said while hypnotized?

If I knew this would happen, I should have become either a judicial officer, a member of the National Assembly, or a businessperson who can possess power. I lament having wanted to become an actor.

I remember you as the person who said that hypnotic investigation and suspect identification are not credible, but what do you think of the current reinvestigations by the Committee of Past Affairs? Are you insulting them too? You should be repenting on the past. Is the law a joke to you?

When I think back on what the police and prosecution did in the past, I can’t trust any governmental body. Why would I say untruthful things at the age of 21 not long after [Jang Ja Yeon’s] funeral, testify countlessly from late night to morning, and have reporters everywhere when I go to school, work, home, and any other place I go? It seems like you’re not understanding the essential reason why I’m testifying.

If you’re confident, you should participate in the interview under your real name, speak properly about the situation, and admit to the poor investigation that was acknowledged by the police. I hope you realize that it’s because of people like you that good judicial officers are being misunderstood, and that’s why my current prosecutors, who I’m thankful for, are having a hard time. As a judicial officer who should say the right things, please speak properly.