The current dispute that surrounds Kim Soo-Hyun AND Kim Sae-Ron He took a new turning point with the release of a linguistic forensic analysis that raises serious doubts about the authenticity of some 2016 Kakaootalk messages linked to the actor.
On April 9, a research team of the Truebaum Institute shared the results of an analysis of the forensic language conducted using a method called “Identification of the author” a linguistic technique distinct from the analysis of the validity of the standard declarations (SVA). Unlike SVA, which measures the credibility of the declarations, this approach statistically assesses if several messages in several years have probably been written by the same person.
The analysis, commissioned by Kim Soo-Hyun side, compared the messages of 2016, 2018 and 2025. In particular, the messages of 2025 have been confirmed Kim Soo-HyunBased on real KakaoTalk conversations with known knowledge.
The key results of this analysis suggest:
- The messages from 2018 and 2025 have not shown statistically significant differences, indicating a high probability that were written by the same person in this case, Kim Soo-Hyun.
- However, the 2016 messages, which previously were advertised by the YouTube channel Garo Sero Institute, showed significant stylistic and linguistic deviations.
- The probability that the messages of 2016 and 2025 were written by the same person was only 8%, with a level of confidence of 95%. The comparison between the messages of 2016 and 2018 has also shown a low similar rate with the trust of 92%.
These results suggest a high probability that the 2016 messages have not been written by Kim Soo-Hyunraising the possibility that they may have been manufactured or manipulated.
On the other hand, The part of Kim Soo-Hyun had previously declared that he did not recognize the messages of 2016 and that he had requested a formal analysis to verify their authenticity. However, The party that performed this analysis was sketched, leading to suspicions. Kim Soo-Hyun’s team had previously declared that he did not recognize the messages of 2016 and to have requested a formal analysis to verify their authenticity. However, The party that performed this analysis was sketched, leading to suspicions. The party that performed this analysis was sketched, leading to suspicions.
In the meantime, while the aforementioned “author’s identification” method is relatively new in South Korea, it is well consolidated in academic and legal contexts abroad, especially in criminal investigations and in verification of documents. Consequently, attention is paid to what impact the results of this analysis will have on the future direction of the Kim Soo-Hyun case.
