Internal police investigation can no longer be trusted

The police investigation into the murder of a high school girl in Gwangju has gone beyond simple incompetence. Investigators responsible for uncovering the truth appear to have omitted key evidence that could support suspicions that Jang Yun-gi acted with intent to commit a sex crime, including cable ties and a damaged sex doll. Circumstances have also emerged suggesting that information about the investigation was provided to the suspect's father, a police officer.

On Wednesday, the criminal investigation team chief at the Gwangju Gwangsan Police Station, who was in charge of the case, was arrested on charges of destroying evidence. As the court reviewed the arrest warrant, the victim's family and civic groups held a press conference and condemned the police, saying they were not investigators pursuing justice but "accomplices" who handled the case poorly and covered it up as if they were united with the perpetrator. The police have no excuse.

The early investigation alone contains numerous points that are difficult to understand. Police collected the victim's bloodstains and the suspect's fingerprints from the vehicle used in the crime but did not seize the vehicle itself. Jang's father later continued to drive the car. Investigators also failed to secure a bundle of cable ties found inside it. It was prosecutors, not police, who later obtained the 50-centimeter-long (20-inch-long) industrial cable ties from the home of Jang's father.

Since the adjustment of investigative powers between police and prosecutors, police authority and responsibility have expanded significantly. If investigations are conducted this way, how can the public trust police findings?

The National Office of Investigation has excluded the Gwangju Police Agency's command line and formed a special investigation team. Hong Seok-ki, the new head of the office, said on Monday that he would stake the agency's fate on the case. Even so, it remains doubtful whether an internal police investigation alone can dispel public distrust.

Authorities must determine who ordered or tolerated the destruction of evidence, whether the fact that Jang's father was a police officer affected the failure to search the vehicle and residence and how far up the reporting chain the information went. Since the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office is also investigating the allegations, a joint police-prosecution investigation team should be considered.

Measures to prevent a recurrence are also needed. Korea must establish rules for assigning violent crime cases involving police officers' families and create safeguards against collusion and corruption among officers who remain in the same local communities for years.