Hi Kim, if you use the informant who changed his words as an innocence card [Reporter Jihyun Kim’s Gestalt]

[Reporter Kim Ji-hyun’s Gestalt] is a corner where pop culture content and issues are analyzed by the reporter. I will strive to have the insight to recognize trees and forests, phenomena and essence.

‘Which is stronger: solidarity with perpetrators or solidarity with victims?’

‘The Glory’ clearly answers Moon Dong-eun’s question, but in reality, unlike the drama, the answer is not set in stone. The so-called ‘school fight’, which announces that one is a victim of school violence, focuses on the victim’s statement. It is most important to judge and verify their claims, but the voices that are listened to first are those of the complainant, the victim, not the perpetrator.

The victim’s words must be truthful. Due to the nature of ‘school violence’ that requires recalling memories from years ago, the statements may be sparse, but it is not difficult to distinguish between ‘sparse memories’ and ‘intentional distortion’ or ‘falseness’. Moreover, if the victim himself confessed that some part was false or distorted, all the claims he made lose their value. What would happen if even one person in the victims’ solidarity unit told a lie? It is damage. Damage to the essence. This is the keyword to pay most attention to in the case of actress Kim Heer-ra, who has been embroiled in several controversies.

Kim Heera announced on the 11th that she would take legal action against Dispatch, which first reported the allegations of school violence and bullying. She claims that she is neither an Iljin nor a perpetrator of school violence. She added that this report claimed, “It is a frame of error that sets standards and generalizations for celebrities who become part of the group and become perpetrators even when there is a fight.” Her point is that, far from being a perpetrator, she is a victim.

The saying ‘everyone who stands by is a perpetrator’ shows that it is not easy to completely distinguish between perpetrators and victims of violence. However, ambiguity about the subject cannot absolve the perpetrator. What is important is the presence or absence of violence itself. If someone commits violence within (or outside of) the space of a school, and the circumstances of the harm are ‘close to the revealed facts,’ it is true that it is school violence.

On the 5th day of the Kim Hee-ra controversy, the incident seems to have lost its essence and is moving in the wrong direction. It started when some victims changed their words. After Kim Heera reversed her stance, she came forward and claimed that she was the victim, not the perpetrator. Because so many characters appear, it is confusing to know who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. In the end, we have no choice but to go back and look at the comments made publicly. It is up to each person to decide whose claim is more credible.

Ask Heera Kim 1 – Why do we easily forgive ‘false informants’?

Person A, a woman born in 1991, was the first person to report Kim Hee-ra’s controversy to Dispatch three months ago. According to the media, the coverage was completed around May or June, but the reporting date was adjusted to minimize damage to tvN’s ‘Uncanny Rumors 2’, a film in which Kim Hee-ra appeared. Mr. A and Heera Kim became aware of each other’s existence while responding to an interview with Dispatch at the time. According to Mr. A, Kim Hi-ra and some of her victims met during this process and resolved all misunderstandings. Afterwards, Ms. A called Dispatch and demanded, “The whole thing was a misunderstanding, so don’t report it.” When the report broke her expectations and came out, Ms. A turned to another media outlet, Daily Sports. He claimed to the media that Mr. H, another person who claimed to have been harmed by Heera Kim, was a ‘really bad person’. The identity of the perpetrator suddenly changed from Heera Kim to Mr. H. The case has entered a new phase.

Mr. B’s interview was also published on the same day and through the same media. He also changed his position. Mr. B revealed that he gave false testimony (report) to Dispatch while trying to stop Mr. A from reporting. At first glance, this seems unlikely. So, Mr. B’s explanation is as follows. Ms. B went to Dispatch together to stop Ms. A, who misunderstood her older sister as a perpetrator of school violence. Mr. B said that during the interview with Mr. A and the reporters, he became angry when he heard the sisters of the Sangji Girls’ Middle School group ‘Big Sanji’ call him a ‘bat’. The reason she gave false testimony was when she found out that her sisters called her ‘bat’. Although we do not know the background as to why Mr. B overturned his claim, he also emphasized that everything about Kim Heera was a misunderstanding.

There is a person who revealed that Mr. A and B, who changed their words, were the cause of the problem. This is Mr. H. They said that because Mr. H impersonated Heera Kim, they misunderstood the actor. This is similar to Heera Kim’s argument. Heera Kim claims that she was misunderstood by her friends because Mr. H was impersonating her. Currently, she belatedly revealed that the only actor who admitted to assault was Mr. H, and that it was a two-way assault. Heera Kim, who resolved the misunderstanding by meeting with A and B, believes that H, who refuses to meet with her, had intentions.

In this case, are A and B perpetrators or victims? (To be exact, Mr. A, B, C, and D, victims’ solidarity who changed their stance) They were victims when Kim Heera was ‘misunderstood’. Now that the misunderstanding has been resolved? From Kim Hee-ra’s perspective, he is clearly the perpetrator. He even confessed that he had given false testimony. Why does Kim Heera so easily forgive A and B, who are the starting point of all the controversy and the biggest perpetrators? Even if you falsely claim damage, can you still be forgiven if you say ‘it was a misunderstanding’? Somehow, this contradicts the implications of school violence.

Ask Kim Heera 2 – How I went from a bystander to a victim

The moment someone says, ‘Don’t think about elephants,’ an elephant immediately appears in your mind. On the 10th, when A and B reversed their positions, Dispatch fully reported the transcript of their claims. Heera Kim’s drawing of an elephant from her school days has been revealed. That doesn’t mean the picture is ‘true’. However, there is something puzzling. Whether it is a misunderstanding or a lie, the statements made by A, B, C, and D are quite detailed and specific. The time, place, and objects where the incident occurred are relatively clearly revealed in the testimony. Mr. A mentioned to the media that Kim Heera, who was two years his senior in middle school, was one of the two leaders of Big Sanji. She even mentioned the size of the story about being pushed for jeans. However, it is said that it was all a misunderstanding. Mr. A, who claimed that the wooden chopstick cigarette shoes in ‘The Glory’ were actually Kim Hee-ra’s appearance, misunderstood the actor’s excellent acting.

What is Mr. B’s situation? Mr. B, who confessed that it was all false testimony beyond a misunderstanding, revealed that Kim Heera had once hit him in his room, and that he had also been forced to sell a bag to Kim Heera. How did Mr. B, who was trying to stop Mr. A, lie so specifically as to mention the brand of the bag? This is a point that raises reasonable doubts, but there is no specific explanation regarding it. The contents of Mr. C and D’s transcripts are also similar. It is claimed that he was beaten by Kim Heera and that he was a key member of Big Sanji.

Cheating may be a misunderstanding, and strong selling of a bag may be a lie. If Kim Heera, who was harmed by the false revelations, forgives, it is not impossible for a third party to argue. The problem is Mr. H. Persons A and B are focusing on raising issues with Mr. H rather than explaining why they changed their words. Afterwards, Heera Kim changed her position from a bystander to a victim.

3. Ask Heera Kim 3 – If the victim who changed her words is an innocent card

What kind of person is Mr. H to Heera Kim? Mr. A, B, C, and D met with the actor to resolve the misunderstanding, but Mr. H is the one who refused the request to meet publicly. Among the people who claimed to have been harmed by Kim Heera, Mr. H is the only one who had a face-to-face interview with Kim Heera. She is also (so far) the only person who maintains a victim claim. Ms. H is the only victim who acknowledged with her own words whether or not she was harmed. Among the major victims who appeared in the media, Mr. H is the only one Kim Heera did not meet.

The contents of the transcript were released again. As of Dispatch’s current report, Mr. A, the first informant, has never mentioned Mr. H. The same goes for Mr. B. Although Mr. A supports Kim Hee-ra, she said that the fact that she is a school victim does not change. If she wasn’t Kimhi, who was she harmed by? The nuance of the interview seemed to point towards Mr. H, but she did not testify about what kind of damage she suffered from Mr. H.

Instead, he made remarks favorable to Heera Kim. The argument is that it makes no sense that Mr. H, who did not go to school, was continuously bullied by Heera Kim. It can also be applied conversely. The task is to calculate the probability that Mr. H, who does not come to school, will bully Mr. A. Mr. H claimed that he was assaulted by Heera Kim when he was in the second year of middle school, and Mr. A was in the sixth grade of elementary school at the time. It is even more unclear as to the circumstances under which Mr. A claims that Mr. H is ‘bad’. Persons A and B also have a history of retracting their claims. If she hopes her testimony will be trusted and the public’s misunderstanding about Kim Hee-ra will be resolved, she needs to clearly state who and what damage she suffered.

It would be absurd for A and B to claim that this was coercion. If ‘verification of school violence’ is the struggle of victims to reveal the truth from the perpetrator, then those who lied cannot become ‘game changers’ in this war. Are those who undermined the appeal of solidarity with victims truly qualified to be called victims?

Heera Kim, who wrote a handwritten letter, suddenly hinted at legal action. But can the victims who lied serve as a game changer for Kim Hee-ra? Instead of becoming a weapon to prove her own innocence, it only piles up her misunderstandings and doubts. She asks Kimhi Eora. She said, ‘Did she become a victim just because she was a celebrity?’

[TV Daily Reporter Kim Ji-hyeon news@tvdaily.co.kr]

[ Copyright ⓒ * New Korean wave in the world * TV Daily (www.tvdaily.co.kr), an online media specializing in entertainment / Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited]