Murder of Jong-Ok Shin

In the early hours of the morning of 12 July 2002, Jong-Ok Shin, a 26-year-old Korean English-language student living in Bournemouth, United Kingdom, was murdered in the Charminster area of the town, as she walked home from a night out with friends.

With no suspect immediately identified, Dorset Police appealed to the public. On 22 August 2002, a drug addict and prostitute was arrested on an unrelated charge suspicion of shoplifting. Whilst being interviewed for this offence, she was asked by police whether she knew anything about the recent murder. The woman told police that she did, providing an account and naming three individuals involved.

One of the men she named was 30-year-old Omar Benguit, a local man who lived nearby to where Shin was murdered. The same day, Benguit was arrested on suspicion of Shin's murder, before later being charged. He, along with another local man, Nicholas Gbadamosi, were also charged with rape, in relation to a woman who they were with on the night of the murder. Gbadamosi also faced a charge of assisting an offender, in relation to allegedly disposing of evidence.

It took two trials in 2003 and 2004 to find both men not guilty of rape (and in the case of Gbadamosi, assisting an offender). At trial, Gbadamosi was released, when him and Benguit were found not guilty of rape (as well as assisting an offender). However, having failed to reach a verdict on the charge of murder, a third trial was ordered. It was at this trial, in 2005, that Benguit was found guilty of murdering Shin.

Benguit was sentenced to life imprisonment and has had two failed attempts at the Court of Appeal, in 2005 and 2014. He now remains at a category A prison in England, with maintaining his innocence a factor in his category status not being lowered, resulting him staying in prison.

Geography
Charminster is a residential and commercial suburb of Bournemouth in Dorset, situated between the suburbs of Springbourne (to the south-east) and Winton (to the north-west). It was incorporated into the County Borough of Bournemouth in 1901. Charminster, as one of the oldest parts of Bournemouth, saw rapid growth before the First World War, with a number of shops, including grocers, butchers and drapers, amongst others, plying their trades. The 1920s saw 'a consolidation of housing', with a lot of development around Charminster.

Charminster is located close to language schools and Bournemouth University, making it ideal for students.

Community at that time
In the year 2002, in the space of six months, Charminster faced three murders. The first occurred on 27 May, when 56-year-old Jean Rhoda Kenaghan was stabbed to death in Charminster Road by a 51-year-old man. Shin's murdered then occurred, followed by the murder of local woman, Heather Barnett, on 12 November in her house on Capstone Road, where she was killed by Danilo Restivo. This was alongside other recent murders that year across Dorset, including pensioner Peter Mabey, who lived in Oakdale, Poole, being stabbed to death in his flat in May, and, days later, Jemma Benson, who was asphyxiated at her home in Wimborne, as well as Hazel Jones, who was murdered on her doorstep in Poole in June.

Shin's murder occurred during 'one of the busiest weeks of the year' for Bournemouth's language schools. In 2002, at that time of the year, the Dorset population would swell by up to 1,700 at 'any one time', said to be worth '£100million a year to the local economy', which was even more than the conference industry in 2002. At that time, Bournemouth's summer season would regularly see violence and abuse targeted against students, despite language schools quickly pointing out how rare incidents were in comparison to the population of students.

There had been a number of violent incidents against students in Bournemouth in 2002, with a noted rise in Autumn 2001 of hate crimes after the September 11 attacks in the United States (since the attacks, South Korea had been sending more language students to Britain due to entry into the USA becoming more difficult). PC Mohammed Khan, community relations officer stated at the time how people were attacked "because they looked foreign". In February 2002, a 16-year-old Saudi Arabian student had been punched and kicked to the ground, having his wallet stolen, whilst at a bus stop on Gervis Road in the town centre. In another incident, the same month, Aravinthan Thayalnayagem, aged 46, was jailed, having attempted to rape a Chinese student. In Match 2002, a Swiss student, aged 18, was knocked unconscious during an unprovoked assault in Southbourne, with a 23-year-old Japanese student being indecently assaulted Cemetery Junction, at one end of Charminster. Bournemouth had previously received what was described as 'bad publicity' in Europe, when Dorset Police discussed 'segregating some sections of the beach for students to avoid confrontations'. Bournemouth was said to have 'fewer offences against students than any other area', according to Mike Ferris, then principal of the Westbourne Academy and chairman of the International Education Forum.

Despite reported violence being relatively rare, a number of students insisted how they were regularly harassed and verbally abused. Pearl Cho, a Korean Bournemouth University student told the Daily Echo in 2002 that she didn't feel safe 'at all', having faced 'so much trouble' in Bournemouth, indicating that her and her friends had experienced people swearing at them and assaulting them, but added it was 'a minority of people'. She added she had faced verbal abuse that was 'sexist'.

Another language school student, Venezuelan student Jhasmine Rangel, told the Daily Echo how she was 'too scared' to go back to her language school in Charminster at night, stating: "I try to avoid Charminster as much as possible, I never come here when it is dark because it is too dangerous", adding how there weren't many police and that a similar attack to that of Shin's murder would happen again without greater protection for foreign students.

Some students, such as South Korean student Shun Lupant, found that Charminster was a safe place to live and that him and his friends felt 'very safe', liking Charminster 'very much'.

Dorset Police had previously launched Operation Columbus, in which accredited language schools would show students an induction video on safety and welfare. A teacher at Kings School of English, Bournemouth, Jim Ewing, stated that the school gave advice on safety to students, urging them to either walk home in a group or if this wasn't possible, to take a taxi.

Jong-Ok Shin
Jong-Ok Shin was born on 3 April 1976, to her mother, Tae Yeon Bae and father, Jong Geun Shin, with it being noted that: "It was obvious she was from a very happy family."

Having already completed a degree in trade and commerce, Shin's father sent her to Bournemouth to study as a foreign language student, to improve her English. Her parents, believed to be funding their daughter's education, had chosen England, believing that it was 'a country full of gentlemen'. Shin arrived in the United Kingdom in November 2001, before starting studies at Anglo European School of English on Lansdowne Road in Bournemouth, where she was one of approximately 700 South Korean students in the town. Shin lived in Shelbourne Road, in the Charminster area of Bournemouth, within walking distance of the college at an approximate distance of 0.8 miles (1.2km).

She held a part-time cleaning job at the Chase Manhattan Bank in Littledown. Shin also had worked as a part-time room attendant at the Carlton Hotel in the town centre. A very close friend of Oki stated that she was a ‘popular girl with the boys’ and that that ‘some Korean boys liked her’. In January 2002, Shin had a relationship with a man named Lee, however due to being 'embarrassed by him', she ended the relationship, leaving him 'a bit upset when she had finished with him'.

Shin established a close relationship with a Spanish student at the Language School, with the pair seen Richmond Arms pub on Charminster Road, used by a number of language school students.

Shin was described as 'pretty, innocent and trusting' by her landlady, noting how the week before her murder, Shin had celebrated her 26th birthday, cooking her host family a Korean meal.

Prior to her murder, Shin had completed her course on 28 June and was awaiting her results. On 10 July, she had held a garden party at her address to celebrate her 26th birthday.

Her parents had hoped that Shin would return to South Korea, with it appearing that Shin would move back there in the 'near future', with hopes of marrying.

Omar Benguit
Omar Benguit was born in 1971/1972, in Morocco, North Africa. Benguit's relationship with his father was described as 'complicated'. In approximately 1979, Benguit and his family arrived in England from Morocco. The youngest of his family, he grew up in Lymington, Hampshire, living in the Flushards Estate and on Southampton and Gosport Road. He later moved to Bournemouth, Dorset.

Dyslexic, Benguit had a difficult time at school and didn't enjoy it. As dyslexia wasn't talked about as much, Benguit was sent to a school for children with behaviour problems. Whilst at school, he used to get into trouble, including stealing items and fighting others. When this occurred and he went home, his father allegedly gave him a difficult time about it. Benguit also attended Priestlands School.

Suffering from the inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn's, Benguit rarely drank alcohol. To deal with his condition, Benguit took medication, however, at one stage, a doctor refused to prescribe him medication, with Benguit choosing to take dihydrocodeine, a highly addictive medication used to treate moderate to severe pain.

Having left school without any qualifications, Benguit's behaviour went 'downhill', where he 'got himself involved with the wrong people', where 'a bit of weed turned into a bit of cocaine'. Going out with friends resulted in Benguit crashing in the shed instead of sleeping in the house.

Benguit's sister, Amie, recalled how Benguit would steal from his own family. She stated that Benguit would 'steal a box of chicken and try to sell it on down the road to a restaurant for £10 so he could get drugs'. Amie stated she would call the police herself, wanting him to be arrested and imprisoned for a short time, in order for Benguit to 'sort himself out.'

Benguit's self-destructive behaviour was painful, as well as frustrating for the family to witness. Amie recalled how her family 'almost disowned him', and although they didn't, they just wanted to try and teach him a lesson.

1989
One of Benguit's first offences was recorded in 1989, where aged 17-years-old, Benguit was accused of stealing items to the price of £12.48, including wine, pens and a calculator, from Lymington junior school.

Having fallen out with his parents, that same year, Benguit was living at a bail hostel, Carlisle House, in Winchester. It was whilst living here that was put on probation for two years after he dishonestly received stolen goods, having helped to carry items away that had been taken by others from cars that had been broken into. Benguit was described by his defence solicitor, Charles Ackroyd, as 'immature and easily led'.

1991
In 1991, then aged 18-years-old, Benguit broke the terms of his probation, failing to attend and complete community service work. Benguit was either playing football or had taken overtime at his job, failing to complete the 14 remaining hours of a 40 hour order, on four occasions. He was warned at Lymington magistrates court in February that year by judge, the Honourable Major Peter Baillie that community service was an alternative to prison, with Baillie fining Benguit £50.

1992
By 1992, aged 19-years-old, he was living at an address in Charminster Road. Whilst living here, Benguit appeared at magistrates in March of that year, having been charged with two counts of assault, having caused two people in the Lymington grievous bodily harm (GBH). Bengut also faced a charge of burglary, having stolen a pair of trainers, wallet and an alcometer that belonged to police.

In October 1992, a warrant was issued for Benguit's arrest, having failed to attend court to answer charges relating to public order and police obstruction offences. Benguit handed himself to the court, stating he hadn't attended due to being sick, learning of the warrant when he called in at his home address.

In 1992/1993, Benguit had returned to Lymington and Pennington Hampshire, living in a housing development known as The Old Maltings, as well as on Howards Mead.

In November 1992, Benguit was arrested for breaching bail conditions. He was taken to Lymington police station, where he was later charged with criminal damage, having written on the mattress and wall within the custody cell he was in.

1993
On New Year's Day 1993, Benguit was out with a group of friends in the area of St Thomas' Park, when police officers exchanged pleasantries with them. Benguit, who had consumed six or seven pints of alcohol, shouted obscene remarks at the officers, becoming more aggressive. Having been warned about his behaviour, he was arrested, with a friend having failed to calm him down. Having been arrested, Benguit had to be restrained in a police van. When the van reached Lyndhurst police station, it was alleged that Benguit had head-butted an officer (although under cross-examinatation, the officer said whilst it was 'most unlikely', it was 'possible' that Benguit had stumbled as he got out of the van. Giving evdience, Benguit stated that he thought police were attempting to arrest his friends, with him going to the group to find out what was happening. He stated that he had later been pushed out of the police van at the station, causing him to lose balance and stumble on the step, clashing heads with the officer.

It was here, that in January 1993, he was at court in front of Major Baillie again, charged with public order offences within the town, alongside two other men. In February 1992, the men had sworn at and abused a woman out shopping in Lymington High Street, with her being called a 'fucking bitch'. Benguit and another told her they would 'get her'.

During the trial, Benguit, unrepresented, claimed that she had called him a 'half-breed', accusing her of lying about what had happened. The three of them were said to have ridiculed the police, prosecution service, magistrages' cleark and the Bench, with them repeatedly taunting and mimicking the police and Crown prosecter. They were all warned a number of times that the faced being held in contempt of court, as they were 'pushing their luck'.

The trio had complained of an injustice and how they'd been 'stitched up', with their trial in a 'kangaroo court'. The police were referred to as 'pigs' and the prosecutor as the 'slick, big-wig prosecutor'. Wolfwhistles were made at the female court clerk, who was also laughed at, describing the behaviour as 'absolutely deplorable'.

Whilst the other men pleaded guilty, Benguit pleaded not-guilty. All three were found guilty.

Later that month, Benguit was back at court on two other occasions. This included at New Forest magistrates, having been charged with threatening behaviour and assaulting police officer, PC Andrew Grist, with a later appearance for damaging a car.

At the start of 1993, Benguit had a large number of health problems, particularly with his mental health. This led to Benguit overdosing, being taken into the care of St Ann's psychiatric hospital, Poole. Having left the care of the hospital, Benguit moved into an address in the St Michael's Road in Bournemouth in 1993. Benguit's brothers worked in a local restaurant or takeaway, where it would be normal for Benguit to attend and receive food from the family.

1994
In 1994, Benguit was committed to stand trial at Southampton Crown Court, having been charged with assault, causing grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm (ABH).

By his early twenties, Benguit had been convicted of offences 60 times. Benguit faced further convictions for possessing offensive weapons and assault with intent to resist arrest. During one incident, Benguit stabbed the owner of a house, who he interrupted attempting to burgle the property. In another incident, Benguit had threatened another person with a syringe. In relation to a pub brawl, in which Benguit admitted his actions were a bit over-the-top with retaliating, a judge in a previous trial commented how one day, he thought Benguit would kill someone.

2002
At the time of Shin's murder, his family ran the Metro takeaway on Old Christchurch Road, in Bournemouth's town centre, where Benguit had worked regularly, before he was left blind in one eye, following an accident.

Benguit stated that his life was out of control in 2002. Benguit told the court he took crack cocaine and heroin in that year, with credit card fraud funding his addiction. At the time of Shin's murder, he was unemployed, living on Linwood Road in Charminster.

Incident
(1). On the night of 11 July 2002, Shin and friends had been on a night out, firstly at the Bank wine bar in Charminster, before the Elements and Inferno nightclub in Bournemouth town centre, in Fir Vale Road. Shin didn't drink alcohol. At approximately 02:07 on 12 July 2002, what is believed to be the last image of Shin was captured on a CCTV camera at the front entrance of the club. Just after 02:00 BST, Shin and friends had left the nightclub, walking home to the Charminster area of Bournemouth, via Horseshoe Common. [[File:Shin's movements from Inferno nightclub to the scene of her murder.png|left|thumb|400x400px|A map outlining Shin's movements on the night of her murder

]] (2). At approximately 02:18 BST, Shin and others continued walking in the direction of Charminster, having reached the Cemetery Junction crossroads that split Wimborne Road (going into the town centre), with Charminster Road, the main road through the Charminster area of Bournemouth.

(3). Reaching the junction with Malmesbury Park Road, only Shin and another friend remained in the group, where they walked onto Malmesbury Park Road, where Shin's friend lived, with Shin living on the next road along.

(4). Reaching Shin's friend's address, the two said goodbye and Shin left her address, to continue a few minutes walk back to her address, at approximately 02:48 BST (the time is known as Shin's friend checked the clock when she entered her house). It was rare for Shin to walk home, however, Shin continued on her own. (5). Whilst walking on the right-hand side of the pavement, Shin walked approximately 75 yards from her friend's address, when at approximately 02:50 BST, she was attacked, being stabbed in the back three times. Residents on the street heard arguing voices between a male and female, followed by 'piercing screams', a 'disturbance', before hearing a 'woman's voice moaning'. Some of the residents heard Shin fall against a car.

Three residents located Shin, having heard her screams, emerged from their houses, finding Shin lying on the pavement, semi-conscious and heavily bleeding, propped against a lamp post. Shin pleaded twice for help to resident Melvin Whitfield, whose wife provided a cushion and blanket for Shin. Police responded promptly to the scene, setting a

roadblock up at approximately 03:00 BST, where, along with the ambulance service, Shin was taken to Poole Hospital.

Rushd to hospital with life-threatening injuries, on arrival, Shin was still conscious and despite speaking poor English, was able to tell police and medical staff that she was attacked from behind by a man in a mask, who subsequently ran away. She added that having been attacked, she had seen her blood, before falling to the ground.

As a result of blood loss, Shin suffered a heart attack and seconds before her death, she had struggled as she attempted to tell doctors that she had been stabbed in the back by a masked man. She lost consciousness, and as surgeons rushed her into theatre for surgery, she died from her injuries at 03:40 BST, on 12 July 2002. Shin was not immediately identified by police.

Community reaction
Members of the public left flowers and cards at the scene, including one that read: "We did not know you. We never will. God bless you darling. Rest in peace."

Local newspaper, the Daily Echo reported that at the time of Shin's murder, the Charminster community were still coming to terms with the murder of Jean Kenaghan, who had been stabbed to death on nearby Charminster Road.

They reported that a father of one family, 38-year-old father-of two, Chris Chandler, who had lived in Charminster for ten years, was 'desperate to quit the area', noting how his family's planned move to Japan in September couldn't arrive sooner, noting how 'the streets are so much safer' in Japan.

A taxi driver, 59-year-old Arthur Marsh, who lived on Malmesbury Park Road, told the Daily Echo how he was contemplating moving away, blaming how crime in the area had risen due to 'the increase of drugs in the area', describing it as 'a big problem now'.

Councillor David Smith, councillor for the central ward, provided his sympathies to the friends and family of Shin, adding: "It is terrible that a guest of our town is murdered in this way", stating how her murder showed how "the breakdown of law and order in our society is affecting our lives." Councillor Smith continued that he wished the government would realise that "It is essential that the public are protected by providing more police officers, stiffer sentencing by the courts and more prisons." The Mayor of Bournemouth, Councillor David Baldwin deplored any violence against visitors, stating he was 'deeply distressed' by Shin's murder. Hoping visitors, such as students, were not put off from visiting Bournemouth, he added how he thought police did "as much as they can to help foreign students be aware of the change of culture they have", when arriving in Bournemouth. He hoped that lots of witnesses spoke to police to 'stamp out this sort of violence' in Bournemouth.

The Director of the Anglo-European School of English, where Shin was studying, Brian Brownlee, told the Daily Echo that Shin was 'a very nice girl' and that they were 'all extremely upset' about her death, adding they would do 'everything we can to help the police in their inquiries'.

Shin's landlady (who was not named), where Shin had lived for approximately five months whilst in Bournemouth, told the Daily Echo that she couldn't believe that Shin had been stabbed to death, adding she was 'dreading' the arrival of her parents, noting: "They must be in deep shock and I just don't know what I'm going to say to them".

Investigation
The investigation was led by Detective Superintendent Pete Jackson, with an incident room set up at Bournemouth police station. Briefing the press at the beginning of the investigation, DSU Jackson said: "'It was a vicious sudden attack and the cause of death is stabbing, more than once. It is likely that the offender will be heavily blood-stained and we haven't found a murder weapon.

'We believe the victim had been out in Bournemouth and was on her way home.

'We're appealing to anyone who saw anything suspicious in Malmesbury Park Road anytime around 3am.

'And we're asking for people to check their front gardens for discarded blood-stained clothes or a weapon.

'We have no idea at all what the motive was. Because we don't know much about the victim we're keeping an open mind.'" From start to finish, the investigation involved over 300 officers. On the day the investigation launched, the British Crime Survey had released crime figures had been published that showed Dorset as a county with the 'highest rates of violent crime in the south west' (police chiefs in Dorset questioned this).

The police responded promptly to the report of the attack, followed by searching intensively on the road, pavements and surrounding gardens. At 09:00 BST, a recovery vehicle arrived at the scene to removed a parked car on the road.

It was established there was no forensic or CCTV evidence obtained at the scene, with Shin being the only witness to her murder. Residents in the street reported that the night was quiet, although one witness said he could hear an argument between a man and woman with foreign accents, followed by low groans from the woman. Police weren't sure whether Shin was followed or her attacker was hiding before the murder.

Police had also been told about a metallic brown vehicle, that had performed a three-point turn, driving in the direction of St Leonard's Road, passing Shin as she lay on the floor. Residents had reported hearing a vehicle with a loud exhaust making a U-turn and driving off (the car however, was later traced to another resident living in the street). .

The knife that was used was not located at the scene; however, Shin's belongings, namely her phone and hand-bag were.

First arrest is made
Dorset Police initially focused on people within Shin's circle of friends. An initial suspect was Shin's Korean ex-boyfriend, a man named 'Lee', who she had previously been in a relationship in January 2002, before Shin had ended it. On 13 July, he was arrested, and on two occasions, police were given additional time by a magistrate. On 18 July, they had until that night, to continue to question him.

Following his arrest, DSU Jackson told the press: "'I think it's important to say that although we've made this arrest at quite an early stage, our investigation is nowhere near at an end.

'Inquiries are continuing quite extensively with a large number of detective following other lines of enquiry and officers are still searching the area.

'We have not yet recovered the weapon and we would ask people living in Charminster and the surrounding areas of Springbourne and Boscombe to check their gardens for anything suspicious.

'It's possible that the attacker could have covered the weapon before discarding it, so we would ask people to search thoroughly but exercise caution if they find something.'" Lee was released on police bail, before later being released without charge, where he subsequently left the country.

Other lines of enquiry
On 15 July, a woman called the police incident room, anonymously telling police that about two people who she knew, who had walked along Malmesbury Park road, past the scene of Shin's murder, at approximately 02:30 BST.

Police later appealed for her to call them back, with DSU Jackson stating that from what the woman had said, he felt she knew more than she had told police and that it was 'vital' they spoke to the two people she had identified, who although may believe they didn't know anything, could still provide them information to progress the investigation.

On the night of 18 July, officers were present at the Bank wine bar in Charminster and Elements nightclub, where Shin had visited before her murder, for people to provide information.

At a later stage, DSU Jackson requested that more of Shin's friends 'urgently' came forward, assuring them they had 'nothing to fear' by speaking to police.

Another arrest
Police made other arrests, including another Korean student, Sang Kyun Choe. He was arrested twice, but later released without charge and returned to South Korea.

Korean Embassy raise concerns and Shin's parents arrive in Bournemouth
It appeared the investigation wasn't progressing, despite 50 detectives being involved in the hunt for the murder suspect.

Six weeks into the investigation, the Korean Embassy in London voiced their concerns about the safety of Korean students in Bournemouth. Dorset Police had advised 'sensible precautions' to be taken by members of the public regarding their personal safety, which included having keys ready on walking to their car or door of their house, as well as 'avoiding unnecessary risks', but stressed there was no evidence Shin had not taken 'sensible precautions'. Dorset Police later urged women to 'take care when out in the evening', in light of Shin's murder and 'several other incidents' within the Bournemouth area.

Shin's parents flew from Korea, pleading for help at a press conference for assistance from the public for their daughter's killer to be caught. DC Simon Tallick was assigned as the family liaison officer, noting that one of the main difficulties at the start of the investigation was 'making contact with a family on the other side of the world who speak no English whatsoever'. Tallick stated that Shin's parents were informed of her death in person, by representatives in South Korea, before he contacted them on the telephone, via an interpreter. DSU Jackson had previously spoken to Shin's parents at length over the telephone, with assistance of an interpreter, where he described the family as 'very supportive' of the police investigation. Shin's father stated that it was difficult for the family about what had happened to Shin.

Detective Sergeant Kevin Connolly described the murder investigation as a 'cold start murder'. He explained how there was no obvious motive and it appeared that Shin was simply 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'.

Dorset Police struggled with creating a victim profile for Shin, with her being a 'private person with no particular close friends' for police to speak to. Police encountered what they described as 'cultural differences', with some of the student community being reluctant to initially speak to police.

Post-mortem and inquest
Shin's post-mortem was conducted by Home Office pathologist, Dr Allen Anscombe. Shin had no defensive injuries or signs she had been in a prolonged struggle, with Dr Anscombe forming the opinion she was stabbed, unsuspectingly, from behind, with a single-edged blade, with an approximately 14–15cm blade. The knife used during the attack has never been recovered. Shin was stabbed with such force that some of her ribs were fractured. Dr Anscombe stated that if the attacker had stabbed her quickly, three times, then it would have been unlikely they would have been contaminated with blood. It was also established that Shin hadn't been sexually assaulted.

The inquest into Shin's death opened in front of district coroner Sheriff Payne on 24 July at Bournemouth Coroners Court on Stafford Road. At the first day of the inquest, DSU Jackson made two appeals. His first appeal was to all language student host families in Bournemouth, to discover whether any of their lodgers knew Shin, what her movements were on the night of her murder or any knowledge of the attack. His second appeal was to pedestrians and motorists on Malmesbury Park Road at approximately 02:50 BST on the night of the murder to 'rack their memories', particularly if they had seen or heard a vehicle turning from Charminster Road into Malmesbury Park Road between 02:45 BST and 03:00 BST.

Shin's parents appeal for information at a press conference
On 25 July, Shin's parents, having arrived in Bournemouth the night before alongside Shin's brother and uncle, appeared at a press conference, appeal for information to find her killer. Shin's mother wrote a letter in which she asked whether her daughter's killer had realised how Shin had suffered and the consequences of his actions.

Reading her letter, DSU Jackson said: "'Can you imagine how long she would have had to suffer from the pain at the time of attack till her death crying out for mercy?

'Shame on your parents. The Justice will not forgive you. The Heaven will not forgive you.

'You deserve a punishment from God.'" DSU Jackson added that Shin's family were 'devastated', not believing that Shin was 'brutally killed' in England, a country that they thought 'was full of gentlemen'.

DSU Jackson confirmed at that time that police enquiries were 'very much open', with the motive still not being known and no witnesses having come forward. Renewing previous appeals, DSU Jackson added: "If anyone remembers someone coming home in the early hours of Friday July 12 and behaving strangely, they should contact us."

Funeral
After her post-mortem, Shin's body was released to her family, with a funeral being held at 10:00 BST on 27 July at Bournemouth Oratory, Sacred Heart Church on Albert Road, on Richmind Hill, Bournemouth.

Shin's family, including her mother and father and brother, Ho Sang Shin and her uncle, Ho Geun Shin attended the public service. Representatives from Dorset Police included senior investigating officer, Detective Superintendent Jackson, as well as Chief Superintendent Paul Bompas, the Divisional Commander for Bournemouth.

An hour-long service was held in Korean and English. South Korean priest Hong Sung Uy, known as Father Gabriel led the service alongside the parish priest of the church, the Reverend Canon Terence Healy. The service was attended by hundreds of mourners, with more people turning up during the service. A card sent to the funeral in Korean read: "I hope you will enjoy your life in heaven forever".

The service began with a Korean introduction rite, and the hymn 'Under His Wings I am Safely Abiding' in both Korean and English. There were readings from the Bible, a psalm, as well as the Lord's Prayer. A friend of Shin's spoke of personal memories she had of her friend. Young people comforted each other at the service and at one stage, Shin's mother was heard to cry out, described 'like that of a wounded animal'. At the conclusion of the public service, Shin's coffin, having been adorned with yellow or white chrysanthemums from hundreds of mourners that had filed past, a traditional farewell symbol, was taken for a private cremation at Bournemouth Crematorium; a route that would have likely first taken Shin past her language school, then the road where she was murdered, before the road where she lived.

At the end of the private cremation ceremony, Shin's family members flew home the next day with Shin's ashes, returning to South Korea.

Reward offered
On 16 August 2002, as investigations continued, it was reported that charity Crimestoppers UK had put up a £10,000 reward for help in catching Shin's killer. Dorset Police believed that the reward may 'provide a break through in the month-long investigation'.

Later, on 17 August, Detective Simon Letch stated that police hadn't received any calls, but that it was 'early days'.

Note located within Shin's room
Within the report about the reward, it was stated that officers were looking to trace the author of a note that was located in a pocket of an overall from Shin's part-time room attendant job at the Carlton Hotel, that was located in her bedroom. Appearing to be signed with the letter 'L', the note stated: "Good morning darling. Have a nice day. Love you". Police weren't sure that the note, written on Menzies Hotels headed paper, was written to Shin or picked up for a room she attended to.

A witness provides information about suspects
On 22 August 2002, Beverly Brown, a self-confessed 'full blown heroin-addict with a large habit' and prostitute in her mid-twenties, was caught shoplifting. For many years, Brown had been involved in petty crime and her arrest meant a potential that she would be sent to prison, as a result, losing her children.

When she was interviewed for the shoplifting offence by PC Fen Luckham, Brown told police information relating to Shin's murder.

Brown had come from wealthy parents, first entering the world of drugs aged 16-years-old, when she stated smoking cannabis. As her drug addiction developed, her parents supported her rehabilitation, including funding stays in drug rehabilitation facilities. She had trained as a nurse before her drug habit took over, building to a £200-a-day habit of class A drugs. Brown funded her habit through prostituting herself and dealing drugs. Her life within criminality led her to be an informant for Dorset Police.

Initially, Brown told police that a male named Ricky Thompson was responsible for Shin's murder. However, this then changed to a male she called 'Mike Big', before naming 'Omar Hussain'.

Having been on drugs for a long time, she didn't trust police, however, having been arrested, she started to provide 'hints' as to who was responsible for Shin's murder, finally settling on the following version of events in a video recorded interview: (1). At some point in the early hours of 12 July 2002, Brown stated she was driving on Charminster Road, having dropped another drug addict off, when she was flagged down by three men - Omar Benguit, Nicholas Gbadamosi and Delroy Woolry. Brown had known Benguit for approximately a year before the murder and had previously socialised with him and Gbadamosi.

(2). Brown drove down Malmesbury Park Road, where the occupants of the vehicle spotted Shin. Benguit allegedly shouted out the window of the car: "Look at the arse on that". The men within the vehicle told Brown to stop the car, as they wanted to get Shin to party with them. Stopping a further down the road, all of the men walked back in the direction of Shin.

Brown stated she was sat in the car for approximately five minutes. She heard footsteps running along the road and when the men returned to the car, according to Brown, it appeared they were sweating. They were shouting, swearing and arguing. Gbadamosi was alleged to have asked Benguit: "What the fuck have you done", before telling Brown to turn the car's lights off and drive away. Brown described how, having taken crack cocaine, they were all agitated, with Benguit being extremely drunk. She stated that Gbadamosi was worried that they would be stopped by police. Brown explained that Benguit had blood on his t-shirt, in small patches, assuming he had been in a fight. She stated that he removed his shirt, using it to wipe blood off his arm, placing it in a carrier bag. She added that something was wrapped in the t-shirt and also in the bag. Benguit then put the bag under the passenger seat. (3). Brown drove the men to a 'crack house' at 47 St Clements's Road, in the Springbourne area of Bournemouth. It was outside of here that Benguit and Gbadamosi allegedly told Brown that they had gotten into a scuffle, when attempting to snatch a handbag. Having collected crack cocaine from the address, the men smoked a pipe, wanting another lift from Brown. The carrier bag had blood on it, so Benguit's t-shirt was placed in a different bag.



(4). Brown stated that she felt she couldn't refuse them and took them to a cul-de-sac at Moorside Close, West Howe, where she stated the men raped her.

(5). After this, the group went to a flat in Cunningham Crescent, West Howe, where Benguit changed into a beige t-shirt, having had a bath or shower.



(6). Brown dropped Benguit outside of another flat, before driving Gbadamosi and Woolry to the River Stour at Iford Bridge. It was here that the men went off with the bag, which also contained a towel that Benguit had used, with Brown not being sure what had happened to it, but thinking it had been thrown into the river. Brown recalled that she was petrified, knowing that all the men in the car carried knives and feared she would be stabbed or killed, along with her daughter.

Brown indicated the man responsible was Omar Hussain, (a false name that Benguit used). Brown assumed police would work out who she meant, as there was only one man named Omar who had a glass eye. Police were aware of the three men, as they were all local drug addicts.

In a video-recorded interview, Brown told police everything.

Brown told police that she had later been raped by Gbadamosi, on his own, with this occurring in the car park of a Fitness First gym in Queens Park.

Brown told police that having given the men a lift, she may have been involved in the murder, feeling guilty, as if she had done something wrong. She stated that she cooperated with the men, as she feared she would have been in 'real trouble', if they suspected she would turn against them.

Brown mentioned that between a day and a week before the murder, she had been in the Richmond Arms Pub in Charminster, with a group that included Benguit and Gbadamosi. She stated that a conversation was had about Korean girls being 'pretty' and having 'tight pussies', talking of a particular Korean girl they wanted to 'fuck'.

As a result of the disclosures she made, she was put into a witness protection programme.

Further investigations
Early in August, the Daily Echo newspaper started a poster campaign in the Charminster area, hoping fresh leads would be produced. This was alongside a daily panel appearing in their papers, appealing for information.

Catherine Taylor, a manager of a local nursery was clearing rubbish in the yard, when she noticed what looked like clothing by a corner fence. On closer inspection, she found that it was a green woollen balaclava, as well as dark blue zip-up trousers. It was of her opinion, from where the clothes position, that they hadn't been there long. She took these clothes to a local police station on 2 August 2002.

Other enquiries by police established that several individuals wearing balaclava-type headwear, despite it being summer, had been seen within the immediate area of the murder scene, including a sighting by a bus driver, who had seen a cyclist on the late afternoon of the 12 July. The cyclist, described as having white skin, appeared to be wearing a balaclava with two eye cut-outs and cycling in the direction of the Wessex Road bridge. The bus driver recalled that everyone was dressed in summer clothing due to it being a 'very warm day', making someone wearing a balaclava unusual.

Benguit is arrested and interviewed
Benguit was arrested on 22 August, almost six weeks after the murder.

Dorset Police issued a statement on the day Benguit was arrested, stating: "'At lunchtime today, a 30-year-old local man was arrested by detectives on suspicion of the murder of Jong-Ok Shin.

'The man is assisting police with their enquiries and is detained at Bournemouth police station.'"Whilst detained, an underwater search team from Sussex Police assisted Dorset Police with searching the River Stour in the area of Iford. Despite stating the search was in connection with the Shin murder investigation, Dorset Police would not comment on what they were searching for. Searches of the river continued the following day, with police appealing to local people within the area if they remembered seeing 'any suspicious or out of the ordinary or unusual activity' nearby on the morning of Shin's murder.

Meanwhile, being interview, Benguit gave various accounts, with his memory potentially effected by his drug use, at that time, being an addict.

In interview on the day of his arrest, he stated that at the time of the murder, he had been alone and saw police cars blocking the road at the scene. He stated that it wasn't until the next day he heard that the scene was for a murder. He added he didn't know Shin and had not discussed Korean girls, or spoken to any. He made repeated mentions to police to look at the CCTV on that night, stating: "...go back and see the police footage, the police tapes and you should see me walking home at that time".

In another interview, Benguit stated that he thought he potentially had been in the town centre.

The following day, on 23 August, Benguit was interviewed again, where he stated he didn't know anyone who could provide an alibi for his account and was unable to say where he had been on the night of the murder. He added he had no involvement in the murder of Shin, stating that he didn't go to the crack house on St Clements Road that day either.

No forensic evidence or DNA linked Benguit to the murder of Shin or rape of Brown.

Benguit later told police that on the night of the murder, he had been with a Scottish man, who couldn't be traced.

Charge
On 23 August 2002, Benguit was charged with Shin's murder. On the same day, police continued to search the River Stour at Iford. The following day, Benguit appeared at Bournemouth magistrates court, with Michael Mackey prosecuting and Adnrew Lilley representing Benguit. The hearing lasted 16-minutes, ending with Benguit being remanded in custody when an application for bail was refused. Benguit was scheduled to appear at Winchester Crown Court on 30 August.

After the hearing, Detective Sergeant Kevin Connolly said: "The investigation continues", renewing an appeal for information.

Later interviews
Brown was subsequently interviewed several times regarding the murder of Shin, apparently with the intent to find information to be used in the conviction trial of Omar Benguit.

Benguit was later interviewed on 26 November 2002, where he provided a different alibi, stating that at approximately 03:00 BST on the day of the murder, he had taken a taxi with a woman called Leanne Mayers. He stated that they stopped to buy crack at the crack house on St Clements Road, where afterwards, went to his house, where at approximately 05:00 BST, Benguit, Mayers and the taxi driver spent 20 minutes smoking the drugs. Afterwards, he stated he walked into town. Benguit added that Brown may have lied for a reward or 'because she needed a scapegoat'.

Gbadamosi is arrested
On the afternoon of 27 August 2002, a Gbadamosi was arrested on suspicion of murdering Shin and taken to Bournemouth Police Station. Gbadamosi claimed that he had been at home when Shin had been murdered. On 29 August 2002, he was released on police bail pending further enquiries.

Further disclosures from Brown and her partner
In early September 2002, Brown's partner, John Oliver, provided a statement to police, regarding information that Brown had disclosed to him about the events that surrounded the murder of Shin. He provided an additional statement to the same effect on 8 October 2002, however, within this statement, he claimed Brown's recollection of events was 'somewhat uncertain'.

Oliver stated that at that time, Brown's version of events had altered over the previous few weeks. He stated that Brown 'drip-fed' details by Brown and he felt that she was getting 'nearer to disclosing the full events of that day'.

Oliver recounted how Brown had told him on the evening of 11 July, Brown had been at the Richmond Arms pub on Charminster Road. From here, she made her way in her car, a Volvo, to a crack house on St Clements Road in Springbourne.

Returning to Charminster Road, she had been flagged down by Benguit and Gbadamosi (there was no mention of Woolry). She stated to him that when they were on Malmesbury Park Road, Benguit had asked Brown to stop, running back along the pavement.

Unlike her accounts to police, Brown stated to Oliver that she had heard a 'loud argument', to which Gbadamosi had exited the car, running towards where Benguit was.

Oliver's statement recounted: '''Beverly then says she heard someone being stabbed. It was so fierce and violent that she heard the knife go through the body and hit the pavement below'' '.

Oliver said that Brown had told him how Gbadamosi and Benguit returned to her vehicle, with Benguit having blood on his clothes, with the pair shouting at her to drive away. He added that Brown had told her that she was so frightened, her leg was shaking as she attempted to use the car's clutch. Having driven away, Brown told Oliver that at some point, they stopped to pick up a black male named 'Darius' and the group go to Cunningham Crescent. Brown stated to Oliver that it was there where Benguit took a shower, putting his blood-stained clothing into a plastic bag. Having left the address on Cunningham Crescent, Brown told Oliver that she drove down a 'gravel road that comes to a dead end', where at approximately 04:30 BST, she was sexually assaulted and raped by the men in the vehicle.

Brown told Oliver that Gbadamosi had told her 'she wants this', whilst another man held a knife, that Brown believed was the murder weapon, to her stomach, at one stage slicing her stomach. She told Oliver how all three of the men took tools from the boot of her car, inserting them into her vagina and rectum, goading one another to do 'more horrific things', including attempting to use wire cutters to try and cut out a 'small plastic lump/ball' above her cervix. Brown stated that it was at that time that Gbadamosi demanded oral sex with Brown.

Brown told Oliver that later on 12 July, she was raped further and had tools inserted into her by Gbadamosi, with this occurring as she was giving drugs to him in her car the car park opposite to the Fitness First gym in Queens Park.

Discrepancies in Brown's account
It was clear from Oliver providing a statement, that Brown's account differed from what she had told police. It is also interesting to note that Brown, spoke to police just under a week after the reward money of £10,000 was offered by police, with this being frontpage news of the local paper. However, it cannot be ascertained as to whether Brown was aware of the reward money, but may add doubt to her account, regarding why it differed.

Brown was known to be a drug addict, which may partially explain her changing story of what allegedly happened that night, and her serious allegations against Benguit and the other two men.

Browns detailed descriptions and ability to recall events, as a drug addict, have been compared against other addicts who provided statements. Mary Sheridan, a heavy drug user who resided at 47 St Clements Road, highlighted that a drug user could expect difficulty in their ability to recall any event after using hard drugs, adding that due to her own habits 'days and months' rolled into one and she couldn't recall 'many things that have occurred', including when asked about where she was or what she was going on the 11 July 2002.

Suspicions have been raised that Brown may have been 'coached' by unknown persons or had a 'wild personal imagination', regarding how detailed her evidence was.

Another drug addict who lived at 47 St Clements Road, Ann Hazlett, stated that her drug addiction made 'recollection of events at these premises [47 St Clements Road] vague and days seem to merge into one'. Similar to Sheridan, Hazlett too was unable to recall whether Benguit had attended the address on the night of the murder, but despite this, she had never seen Benguit covered in blood. Whilst Hazlett stated she couldn't remember, other people present corroborated Brown's account, that they had seen Benguit with blood on his shirt at the crack house. Prior to naming Benguit, Brown initially gave false accounts of who was responsible, as to help police with their investigation, without admitting she was present with the involved parties. Initially, Brown told police that the person responsible was a man named Ricky Thompson. She provided another conflicting account that it was Gbadamosi, naming him as 'Mike Big'. Brown also named Woolry as 'Darius'. Despite naming 'Darius', Oliver provided that Brown had stated that 'Darius' had been picked up later, at the Cunningham Crescent address.

Regarding the people involved, there were differing accounts as to who had asked her stop the vehicle, with Brown claiming that it was Benguit on one occasion, then Gbadamosi at another.

One of the main inconsistencies was Brown's description of the offender. The first description she provided was that the suspect was a white male, however, this later changed to the male having a black completion, before the description became one that clearly resembled Benguit.

In her first statement, Brown stated she wasn't driving the car, however, this changed, where she apologised, stating she didn't want police to think she knew everything about the incident, as she was frightened for her life and her daughters.

Brown also described a car chase, however, there was no evidence of this occurring.

When the Volvo was searched for evidence relating to the Shin's murder and Brown's rape allegation, including forensics on the toolbox, none was located. Brown then claimed that it was in fact a Renault car, of a Mégane model, that she had been driving on the night. When this was identified and searched, there was no evidence in this vehicle either.

CCTV footage of Charminster Road during the times that Brown stated she was driving was checked, showing no vehicle of the make Brown claimed to have used having been on the footage.

On 23 August 2002 police divers recovered a bag containing possibly blood-stained clothing from the river Stour underneath Iford Bridge, however, there was no forensic evidence linking the clothing to Benguit or the murder. A statement was subequently obtained by DC Mark Prince from an acquantance of Mr Benguit called Beverly McNeilly, who confirmed that the clothes were identical to those worn by him.

Whilst in witness protection
Brown was placed in witness protection and housed in a safehouse, allegedly having learned that a price had been put on her head by a gang. During this time, her dependency on drugs increased, resulting in her having to be relocated as and when dealers discovered where she had been accommodated.

It was later reported that she was forced to live away from her daughter, then aged nine-years-old, as well as not being allowed to attend the funeral of her father. It was also reported that if Brown wanted to go outside of the safe house, for a cigarette, she had to wear a 'bulletproof vest'.

In August 2003, Brown wrote a letter to the Head of Dorset Police's Criminal Investigations Department (CID), in which she stated: 'I am the key with vital info. Without me giving the information [sic] I think the police would have a hard case to get to court'.

In the same year, Brown alleged that she had been visited and taken on trips separately by the two officers designated to protect her, when they were not on duty. This allegedly also included having received gifts from them of a stereo and CDs. The officers made a statement stating that the visits had not taken place. In an internal police document in December 2003 from the Superintendent in the Complaints and Discipline Department in Dorset Police, they stated: 'It is genuinely not known who is telling the truth but if not resolved this will undermine Ms Browns credibility at the forthcoming murder trial at which she is the key witness. In 'exhaustive investigations' into Brown's claims, it was concluded that none of the claims could be substantiated, with one of the officers who had allegations made against them by Brown having previously stated in November 2003 that 'Beverly Brown's account of the day out was total fabrication and did not happen'.

In January 2004, a police investigation into Brown's claims that a neighbour of the witness protection address was a paedophile, and that another was dealing drugs were found to be fabricated. Further evidence was later discovered that Brown had made a number of claims of other individuals being paedophiles, within the Bournemouth area, with each of these claims found to be false.

At a meeting with Brown on 6 February 2004, police noted how 'considerable time was spent' with Brown, where they explained 'the implications on the trial, if she was shown to have lied'. Brown 'immediately became defensive' regarding that she was telling the truth and that the police's enquiries 'must be wrong'.

Trials
At each of the trials, such was the salience of the case, a member of the Korean embassy appeared at all the trials.

The prosecution's case was that Benguit, who had an interest in Oriental females, was fuelled by a sexual desire, he acted upon an opportunity on discovering Shin on her own.

First trial (2003)
After being charged with the murder of Jong-Ok Shin, Benguit and Gbadamosi stood trial. Benguit for the murder of Shin and Gbadamosi for assisting Benguit, by disposing of a bag containing clothing into the River Stour, to help Benguit cover-up. Both of the males also stood trial for the rape of Brown, with Gbadamosi charged with further raping Brown between July 12 and August 1 2002. The men both pleaded not guilty to all charges. The trial was held at Winchester Crown Court in front of Mr Justice Michael Morland, with Nigel Pascoe QC prosecuting and Oba Nsugbe QC defending Benguit.

It is worth noting that Delroy Woolry was named by Beverley Brown as also being in the car that night, and being an active participant in the gang rape of her later that morning. However, Woolry was deported back to his country of birth Jamaica in September 2002, allegedly because his visa had expired. This was despite Woolry having been arrested after Brown had been arrested for shoplifting. Woolry has never been on trial for these charges as, despite the serious nature of Brown's allegations, he was never extradited.

Prosecution opening speech
At the opening of the trial, Nigel Pascoe QC, prosecuting, told the jury that Shin's death had occurred through a “particularly brutal murder”, of which Shin had been stabbed three times in the back, with two of the wounds penetrating 15 centimetres. Pascoe told the jury that the “dying words of Oki” occurred in Poole Hospital, where “she said she was attacked by a man in a mask, she had seen her own blood and fallen.”

Pascoe explained to the court that Benguit and Gbadamosi had taken drugs of  “serious quantities”, prior to Shin's murder, where at approximately 02:30 BST, the men had allegedly asked Brown for a lift to a crack house on St Clements Road, to buy drugs.

Brown provides evidence
The entirity of the prosecution case relied upon Brown.

The first trial centralised on Brown's witness statement, with Brown providing evidence at the trial from behind a curtain. By her own admission, Brown was a heavy heroin user, having been addicted for 6 or 7 years, but at the time of giving evidence was said to have been ‘clean of drugs for 60 days’. However, unlike Benguit, as a fellow drug addict, her account appeared to be able to provide a huge amount of detail of what she alleged had occurred.

The prosecution stated how Brown had waited in the car on Charminster Road, not Malmsbury Park Road. Pascoe told the court that Brown alleged that Gbadamosi had commented on Shin in a sexual way, having seen her as they drove along Malmsbury Park Road, asking Brown to stop the car so the three men could talk to her. Brown recounted how Gbadamosi angrily claimed Benguit had made a mistake and hurt Shin, presumably suggesting Benguit had attacked Shin to sell on her purse or hand-bag to buy drugs, thereafter implicating Gbadamosi in his involvement of assisting by disposing of evidence. Brown claimed that when they had been at the crackhouse, Benguit and Gbadamosi had discussed what had happened, devising a cover-up plan. Other witnesses provided accounts that Benguit had asked to wash his hands at the crack house, claiming a bag snatch had ended violently. Brown alleged that she had later heard Benguit confessing to murdering Shin.

Brown alleged that Gbadamosi had sent her threatening text messages, after she had received a threatening phone call. She claimed that, speaking to one of her neighbours, Gbadamosi had threatened to kill her 11-year-old daughter. Gbadamosi claimed that he had been at home when Shin had been murdered, however, the prosecution stated that a witness and CCTV had shown his car was parked immediately within the area at 03:20 BST.

However, residents on Malmesbury Park Road challenged Brown's account, in regards to that Shin had been discovered elsewhere on the pavement to where Brown had described.

John Macleod's evidence
Another drug-addict, John Macleod, provided evidence at the trial that corroborated Brown's account, telling the jury that the morning after the murder, he had been with Benguit, who confessed to stabbing Shin in the back. Macleod mentioned how Benguit also had blood on his shoes.

Defence case and cross-examination of Brown
On 17 July, Benguit's defence counsel, Nsgubi, alleged that Brown was “in too deep” as a drug dealer and as a result, had ‘invented her story so police would help her out of Bournemouth's drugs underworld.

On 18 July, Gbadamosi's defence counsel, Anthony Davies, put it to Brown that her original story that she had told police (mentioning how a man named ‘Mike’ had confessed about the incident and Gbadamosi wasn't mentioned), was a fake account, as she had later stated that she herself was at the scene and the conversation with ‘Mike’ never happened. Davies stated how Brown's initial account about the alleged confession was “compelling and believable”, with her story being completely different to the one she told in court.

He added: “It all makes it more and more difficult to determine when you are telling the truth. Brown retorted that initially, she had only dropped hints at the time she was initially interviewed by police, due to being frightened of those involved.

Brown's initial story about Gbadamosi's involvement was in fact that it had been another man responsible, who she called ‘Mike’, who had ‘confessed’ to her about the incident. ‘Mike’ had allegedly told Brown about what had happened and that it had begun as a bag snatch attempt on Malmsbury Park Road, where he stated ‘Benguit could not handle his drink and an innocent girl had died because of it’.

Later, this confession changed to the person responsible in fact being Gbadamosi.

Pathologist evidence
On 21 July, Home Office pathologist Dr Allen Anscombe gave evidence, stating that Shin's injuries demonstrated she had been “unsuspectedly stabbed from behind”, noting how her injuries showed no sign of a struggle or that Shin had any defensive injuries. He added that the stab wounds caused “internal injury to the lungs and a large vein” and how a result, Shin had died from “the loss of blood caused by these wounds.”

Drug addicts provide evidence
On 22 July, several drug-addicts provided evidence.

Victoria Ling
Recovering drug addict Victoria Ling gave evidence, stating how Benguit, Gbadamosi and another man visited her house in the early hours of 12 July to buy drugs. Ling stated that Benguit's head was “all over the place as if something was on his mind”, noting how he had blood on his hands. She added: “I didn't see him wash his hands but I heard the tap being run”. Cross examined, Ling conceded that she could have been mistaken that the marks on Benguit's hands were blood.

John Kelly
However, self-confessed drug addict and dealer, John Kelly, told the court that Benguit had told him that he had blood on his hands.

Amanda Freeman
Amanda Freeman, a drug addict and former prostitute also gave evidence, stated that having moved in with Benguit for two weeks in July, she had a conversation with him about bloodstained clothing, adding that when she asked Benguit about it, he told her ‘something had gone wrong’. Freeman claimed to having heard a later conversation between Benguit and a group of friends, where he had talked about a student and ‘it had gone wrong’, making that he was talking about a stabbing that had gone wrong.

The reliability of Ling, Kelly and Freeman were questioned by Nsugbe, suggesting the difficulties they would have had, as drug addicts, to recall timings or dates of events.

The jury view Brown's car
On 25 July, within the basement car park of the court, the jury viewed a Volvo, that Brown alleged she had driven Benguit, Gbadamosi and Woolry to Malmsebury Park Road in, as well as other locations.

DS Connelly details Benguit's interviews
On 28 July, DS Connelly read transcripts of interviews between police and Benguit. Benguit told police: “You have no case at all, you are looking for someone to charge and that happens to be me. That's the way you work, you are putting it all down to me”. He had denied to police that a CCTV still from outside a wine bar on Charminster Road near to the time of the murder, was him.

Benguit told the officers that Brown was “two faced” and that he didn't get on with her. He claimed that police were looking for someone to frame, having not previously blamed someone for murdering Shin. He denied that a still CCTV image taken from the Bank Wine Bar, Charminster Road at 02:52 BST on 12 July 2002 was him.

DS Connelly had told jurors that at the time Benguit was interviewed, it was not public knowledge that Shin had been stabbed in the back, as it had not been released to the media, however, Benguit had remarked where Shin had been stabbed.

This claim was questioned on 29 July, where it was found that the information had in fact been in the public domain prior to Benguit's arrest and interview. In court, Nsugbe produced a copy of the Daily Echo from 12 July 2002, where the murder had been detailed on the front page.

Nsugbe read a line from the article to DS Connelly, where it stated how Shin had been ‘found suffering stab wounds to the back’. Connelly retorted that there was a police press officer who was meant to record what they had released to the press and that the information hadn't been recorded.

Benguit and Gbadamosi provide evidence
On 30 July, Benguit and Gbadamosi took to the witness stand, denying that they were responsible for Shin's murder. Both admitted a ‘heavy’ Class A drug habit, which had only stopped since they had been arrested in relation to Shin's murder.

Benguit's evidence
Benguit denied previous witnesses claims that he had blood on his hands and had asked to wash them.

Benguit claimed that on the night of 11 July, he had spent the night and early hours attempting to feed his crack-cocaine habit, going into Bournemouth town centre, having decided to burgle his father's shop for money, which he then hadn't done. After this, homeward bound to his address on Linwood Road, he had walked past police vehicles at the scene on Malmsbury Park Road.

Gbadamosi's evidence
Gbadamosi stated that he was at home when Shin was murdered, with this claim supported by a speed camera on Turbary Park Avenue, at 23:50 BST on 11 July. Evidence showing his care, a rare Renault 25, having been parked on Charminster Road, near to the crime scene at 03:20 BST on 12 July was put to Gbadamosi, who stated that whilst he couldn't recall being out at that time in the morning, if it was his vehicle he “must have been with it”. Cross-examined by the prosecution that the purpose of his visit to the area was for a “drugs purpose”, Gbadamosi replied with “probably”. Gbadamosi denied the prosecution's suggestion that his denials of the pairs alleged involvement was trying to help Benguit, denying that he had been angry at Benguit for stabbing Shin, shouting at him about not being able to control his drink and drugs and that he had hurt Shin.

Judge questions Brown's evidence to the jury
It was reported on 5 August, how Mr Justice Morland had told the jury that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, many who were drug addicts, should be treated with ‘extreme caution’, adding how: “They might have a motive for giving incorrect and untrue evidence, thinking that if they say what they think the police want to hear, they may be more leniently delay with for their own crimes and escape prosecution”.

Regarding Brown's evidence, Mr Justice Morland said:

"“She chopped and changed her accounts of what she said had happened and admitted telling many lies in her interviews and statements.

“Might she have told falsehoods to distance herself from her own involvement in the crime? May she be shielding the real murderer of Ski by making false allegations against Omar Benguit?

“Might she have an agenda or motive of her own for making false allegations against Omar Benguit?”"

Prosecution closing statement
On 1 August, closing the prosecution case to the jury, Pascoe stated that Brown had 'told the truth' in her evidence, but understood that it was 'always preferable to have a witness who came with a nice baggage label', appearing to refer to Brown being a drug addict. However, he told the jury that 'when a murder happens at 3am and the background is drugs, you cannot pick and choose your own witnesses, we can only call them before you to assess'. Pascoe told the jury that Brown was either 'a liar and fantasist who has set out to incriminate these defendants or right at the heart of her evidence, she spoke true'.

Defence closing statement
In the closing speech for the defence, Nsugbe stated that Brown's evidence was 'bitty, incoherent, inconsistent and it comes very vague', adding 'in a nutshell, it is very unsafe'.

Deliberations and verdicts
On 5 August, at10:30 BST, the jury began their deliberations.

On 7 August, the jury cleared Gbadamosi of raping Brown later on the day of Shin's murder, however, were still left to deliberate about whether he had allegedly helped Benguit to dispose of the clothing he wore during the murder, as well as gang-raping Brown after the murder had been committed. The same day, Judge Mr Justice Morland called the case 'the most difficult murder case I have had to try'.

On 8 August, after 21 hours and 41 deliberations, the jury of failed to deliver a verdict of either Benguit murdering Shin or Gbadamosi assisting him, however, cleared Gbadamosi of twice raping Brown. The jury had also failed to reach a verdict on the rape charge against Benguit. Having not being able to deliver a verdict, the jury were discharged.

At the end of the first trial, Benguit was remanded in custody. The Crown's position at the end of the trial was that a re-trial should be sought on the charges that the jury couldn't decide on. The case was listed for mention on 22 August, at Winchester Crown Court.

First retrial (Second trial) (2004)
In 2004, a re-trial was held on the basis of the charges which the jury had been unable to reach a verdict on in the first trial. The trial was held at Winchester Crown Court in front of a jury of six men and six women.

Joan Sheridan
On 13 April, former drug dealer, Joan Sheridan, who was still living at the St Clements Road address where the crack house as located, stated that Benguit regularly visited her to ‘score drugs’. She told the court that Benguit and Gbadamosi, who was nicknamed “Half-caste Nick’, had visited the flat on the night of the murder. Despite not being able to give the exact time, Sheridan stated that Benguit had arrived in the early hours of the morning. Sheridan claimed Benguit asked whether he could “get washed” and whether she had “any clothes” for him to get changed into, due to him having been “fighting”. She described how Benguit had “bloody hands, was sweating and nervous”. Sheridan stated that she told Benguit couldn't wash, as he was with someone she didn't like (this was Gabadamosi - the pair were on bad terms due to him claiming she had stolen a purse from his girlfriends bag). Instead, she asked him to leave the address with that person.

Having been denied the opportunity to wash, it was alleged that Benguit and Gbadamosi called at the flat of John Kelly for just “two to three minutes”, within the same building. Kelly was known to Sheridan as a “rival” drug dealer and by his own admission, had sold drugs to ‘between 20 and 30 people’ on the day of the murder.

John Kelly
Kelly echoed what Sheridan had said, stating that Benguit, wearing a "dark blue sweatshirt and jeans” and Gbadamosi had turned up at his flat in the early hours. Benguit requested to wash his hands, telling Kelly that “I've just done a wee job and cut my finger”. He stated Benguit washed his hands in what Kelly thought may have been the kitchen sink, while Kelly was getting ‘the rocks’ (crack cocaine). When Benguit entered the room, Kelly stated that he was drying his hands, but there wasn't ‘any red’, noting Benguit's hands just looked dirty, as if ‘he had been trying to wash them in a puddle’. Kelly didn't want Benguit to stay, noting he “didn't keep people in the house”, with the premises used a ‘drug dealing house’, where “people usually get served then go” - Kelly noted he didn't want “customers hanging around”.

Kelly, being questioned by Nsugbe, stated that a third man, who was dark-skinned and of medium build, was sat on the path in the garden, but never entered the address or spoke. Nsugbe asked Kelly about the statement he had provided to police, in which he had in fact stated the third man spoke with a Jamaican accent and had a gold tooth, with Kelly retorting that he couldn't remember him speaking.

The towel that Benguit had allegedly used to dry his hands was thrown down the back of a bed headboard. When police first searched the address, they had failed to find this, despite Kelly knowing its location, with him not informing police. On a second occasion, police located the towel in the same place.

Anthony Davies QC, defending Gbadamosi, asked Kelly why the arrival of Benguit and Gbadamosi stuck in his mind, when he had been ‘answering the door to all and sundry’. Kelly replied that he didn't know.

Charlotte Johnson
Charlotte Johnson, a former heroin addict, described how she was Kelly's girlfriend at the time. She told the court she remembered Benguit having arrived at the address and requesting to wash his hands. She stated how she was going to bed, when the door was knocked. Whilst she didn't see anything, she heard voices. She added that “Nobody was allowed to come in at that time of night but for some reason they were allowed in”. She added that she heard the tap running and someone washing their hands. She added how Kelly had come into the bedroom, holding the towel, but was in a ‘bad mood because there was much all over’, with Kelly thawing it over the bed. Pascoe, prosecuting, asked who she saw on the night, with Johnson replying “I saw Omar”, as well as ‘half-caste Nick’ and ‘another man’ she didn't know. She added that Benguit “didn't really speak” to her, as she was in the bedroom.

Victoria Ling
Victoria Ling, another witness, added how Benguit had asked if she had a top he could change into. Unable to find anything, she then heard the sound of a tap. She stated that later on, Benguit and her used heroin together, falling asleep ‘until the following afternoon.’

Brown provides evidence which appears to have altered
On 14 April, Brown, now aged 28-years-old and a former prostitute and drug addict, gave evidence, stating that she had driven the group to the murder scene on Mamesbury Park Road.

She stated that she had been travelling in the direction of Cemetery Junction on Charminster Road, when she was flagged down by Gbadamosi, asking if she could give him and two other males, Benguit and ‘Darius’, a lift to the crack house in St Clements Road. Agreeing, she drove down Malmesbury Park Road where she stated that Benguit had spotted Shin walking along the road, making a comment about her (despite previously claiming in the first trial that these actions were by Gbadamosi).

"“As I we were going down the road there was a shadow on the left, a person, but I couldn't see who it was.

“I thought it was a female or someone small

“Omar shouted ‘look at the arse on her’ and then he wanted to see if she would come back to have a party and a good time with them”"

She added that Benguit had ‘shouted at her to pull over’, to which she did, with Benguit getting out the vehicle, going to speak to Shin, followed by the other men. He then returned “puffing and sweating”, blood being present on his beige-coloured top. Brown stated how the men were “all shouting at each other” and that “Nick was having a go at Omar, but he didn't have to go that far”.

She stated that as she continued to drive, Benguit took his shirt off, placing it around an item, then into a bag and putting the bag under the front passenger seat.

Arriving at the crackhouse, the there men were allegedly asked what they had done. Brown stated: “Nick said they had done a handbag snatch and something had gone wrong, someone had tried to interfere with it, a have-a-go hero is what they called it.”

Brown then stated she was made to drive to a road in Kinson, with Benguit making a number of ‘sexual comments’ about her, before he and another male (Woolry), proceeded to rape her. She stated that she then drove them to Cunningham Crescent, Kinson, where Benguit had a shower or bath.

Brown stated that she had a conversation with Gbadamosi in the early hours of the morning, where he had said Benguit “couldn't handle his drink” but that he had hurt Shin, noting how she (Brown) was trying to find out “whether it was worth going back or calling and ambulance”, to which she stated that Gbadamosi had said “no.”

Having left the Cunningham Crescent address, Brown stated that she drove Darius and Gbadamosi to Iford Bridge, where they dumped the bag that Benguit had earlier secreted under the passenger seat.

Pascoe asked why Brown hadn't originally named Gbadamosi (she had originally given another persons name), to which Brown said: “Out of the three statements, in the first one I was trying to top them [police] about what happened. Iodine't want to be involved in it and also I was scared of what would happen.” She added that she had mentioned Benguit, noting that “there were obviously not many Omars”, expecting police to ‘put two and two together” and locate Benguit. She noted that if she had told police about a “Nick”, there would have been “no chance in trying to find him”.

Nsugbe asked why, within her statement, Brown had given conflicting information. Brown explained “It was a lie with the truth in the hope they would pick up the hint”. This wasn't believed by Nsugbe, who suggested Brown was not telling the truth, with Brown retorting: “I definitely am not lying”, adding “the reason for the first two statements were not the truth is because I didn't want to get involved, I needed them to be caught, I couldn't live with myself.”

Brown's cross-examination continued on 15 April. Brown was asked whether she had attempted to provide police information, prior to her first statement on 9 August 2002. Brown stated she hadn't attempted this, adding: “You don't trust the police, honesty, I spent my life being arrested by them."

Nsugbe asked why, in her first police statement, she had told lies. Brown stated “I was trying to drop hints. I thought through other people they would find out rather than finding out through me. I know it's wrong now.”

Nsugbe told Brown: “You were not present on Malmsebury Park Road and you did not see this? You heard me suggest this to you yesterday and you said you did”, to which Brown replied “yes”.

Nsugbe stated that at first, Brown had failed to provide police with the correct names of Benguit and Gbadamosi, giving police a number of false addresses for the pair. Nsugbe continued, saying: “In the first stamens you never said you were at Malmsbury Park Road did you? You never said you were at the scene of this killing, did you?”, with Brown replying: “Possibly not, no.”

Brown stated that she hadn't told anyone she had seen the killing, but thought that she had spoken to her boyfriend at the time, that she was having nightmares that she “could see”, being able to “picture what had happened” and “was seeing it all the time”.

Brown had stated, regarding the later rape by Gabadamosi, that this had happened in her car. She stated that it had occurred as she was giving drugs to him in the car park opposite to the Fitness First gym in Queens Park.

Brown stated she was saying “No” and crying, with Gbadamosi knowing she didn't want to have sex. She stated she wished she had screamed, as if she had “he might have stopped”. Asked by Nsugbe why in her first statement, Brown hadn't mentioned an allegation of rape, she stated that she “never wanted it to come out in court” and how she “never wanted to tell anyone about it”.

Amanda Freeman
On 19 April, former drug addict Amanda Freeman, stated that she had found a top at Benguit's flat, marked with a “blood splash” across the chest, whilst she was doing some washing. Whilst on police bail at the end of July 2002, she had gone to stay with Benguit. She stated she had a brief conversation with Benguit about it, where he said “it was something that went Wong and it's about a foreign student”. She described Benguit as being “a bit of a head case” and that his behaviour was “pretty erratic”. Nsugbe asked whose clothing she was washing, to which Freeman stated that as no-one else was living with Benguit, she assumed the clothes were his. Nsugbe put it to Freeman that she had not seen blood on the clothing or had the conversation with Benguit she alleged she had. Freeman stated “From my point of view I am telling you how it is and that's it”.

Dr Michael Kelleher, consultant psychiatrist in substance misuse
On the same day, consultant psychiatrist in substance misuse, Dr Michael Kelleher, explained how users of cocaine could be effected, stating that the ‘relationship between crack cocaine and violence’ was a “complex one”, adding that there was a “heightening sexual pleasure” for people that took cocaine and alcohol together. Dr Kelleher added that evidence suggested there was “an increased rate of violence with taking alcohol and cocaine together”. Nsugbe asked Dr Kelleher's statement was a ‘general’ one, applicable to “most” or “some” people. Dr Kelleher staed that “Different people behave in different ways”.

DC Paul Healey, Dorset Police
Also giving evidence was DC Paul Healey, who had been tasked with looking at various CCTV cameras outside of the Bank wine bar. He stated that having examined the stills, it showed a man getting out of a Renault 29, from the passenger side of the vehicle, next to telephone kiosks. He added that the footage then showed the vehicle leave the scene, with the man who had gotten out of the vehicle ‘disappearing from view’. DC Healey stated that the car “certainly appeared to be a Renault of the same make, model and colour” of the one that police had seized from Brown, namely a Renault 29.

Benguit's police interviews are detailed
On 20 April, the court were told that during his police interviews, Benguit had stated he hadn't killed Shin, stating he wasn't at the scene. Benguit stated that he couldn't remember what he was doing in the early hours of 12 July, but added that he remembered he was walking home, noting seeing police at the scene. Benguit stated: “You can't forget loads and loads of police and I thought there was something strange going on because of police cars everywhere. I was walking in the middle of high street, Charminster high street”. Being shown a picture of Shin, Benguit replied that he hadn't seen or met her before. The court were told that Benguit had told police he had heard about the attack through John McLeod, as well as having seen it reported on the front page of the Daily Echo. Benguit had denied having ever disposed of knives or clothes when asked by police.

"Interviewer: Did you attack that lady?

Benguit: No

Interviewer: Do you know anything about the attack upon her?

Benguit: No

Interviewer: So how many times did you stab her then?

Benguit: I never touched the woman"

In a later interview, Benguit denied having raped Brown or to have ever been in a vehicle with Gbadamosi.

In his last interview, Benguit was asked to account for his movements in the evening of 11 Jul and the early morning of 12 July. He stated that he'd bee with a woman from either 21:00 BST or 22:00 BST, before visiting Boscombe precedent, where he went to a taxi company, to the crack house in St Clements Road. He stated that from the crack house, he had returned back to his address in Linwood Road, at approximately 05:00 BST, going on to see his brother at his father's Bournemouth town centre takeaway.

Benguit's evidence
Taking to the stand on 21 April, Benguit stated that he didn't stab Shin, protesting his innocence. Nsugbe asked: “Did you kill Jong-Ok Shin?”, to which Benguit replied: “No, certainly not”, giving the same answer when asked whether he, along with others, had raped Brown. He added how he had never had sex with Brown or raped her, adding he would never have sex with her and that the allegations were ‘a total load of rubbish’.

Benguit stated on 11 July, he had visited the Richmond Arms pub on his own, before visiting his friend Natalie, a fellow drug addict, at the Southbourne flat. He stated that a woman named Leanne arrived at the address and the two of them went downstairs to a vacant flat, where they took heroin. From there, they went to Boscombe in a taxi, travelling to the crack house in St Clements Road, to ‘score’ more drugs. Having left the crack house, the pair returned to Benguit's address on Lindwood Road, where they smoked crack coin. At approximately 05:00 BST or 06:00 BST, Benguit stated he walked through Charminster into the town centre, getting food from his father's shop, before returning to Charminster.

Being cross-examined by Pascoe, Benguit was asked to put on a silver jacket that police had located at his parents address in Lymington, during a search. He put it to Benguit that the jacket had been washed, having once had blood on it, with Benguit denying this. He denied that he had gotten into a car near to Malmsbury Park Road carrying a knife, had seen Shin, told Brown to stop or “tried it on” with Shin. Benguit denied that an argument had occurred between him and Shin, with her having “rejected” him.

Benguit told the court that he had never been in a car with Brown or in the Richmond Arms pub, making ‘crude comments’ about Korean girls.

Gbadamosi's evidence
The court heard how Gbadamosi had been arrested on suspicion of murdering Shin on 27 August 2002. When he was interviewed, Gbadamosi protested his innocence, stating he didn't know Benguit that well, stating: “I have never even walked down the road with him.”

On 22 April, Gbadamosi took to the stand and stated that on 11 July, he had been arrested at 19:30 BST, having been stopped in his car by police. He was released from police custody at Bournemouth Police Station at approximately 23:35 BST, stating that he went to a taxi rank on Lansdwone roundabout, taking a taxi to where his car had been left on Charminster Avenue. From there, he stated he drove home, being caught speeding by a speed camera at 23:50 BST, as he travelled from Kinson Road to Poole Lane on his way to his home address of Nutley Way.

Gbadamosi denied that he had ever travelled in a car with Brown and didn't know Benguit that well. Due to his crack cocaine and heroin habit in July 2002, Gbadamosi stated that he could have been out at “anytime” of the night and morning, attempting to get drugs. He stated that CCTV footage of what appeared to be someone getting out of his vehicle on Charminster Road in the early hours of 12 July was “obviously” him there, but he “didn't really have a recollection of going back out again”, after returning home having left police custody. He stated that he ‘must have been asked to take a drug addict to the Charminster area to get drugs’. Gbadamosi denied that he had been present at a murder and that he had disposed of items.

Prosecution closing speech
Pascoe summarised the case, stating: “After Oki had said goodbye to her friend she is confronted by her attacker. Words are exchanged - partly in a foreign language - behind a van parked in the road. She is seen to walk purposefully away. Within a split second she had been stabbed, knifed savagely three times in the back, three wounds, three screams are heard”. Pascoe repeated Oki's dying declaration that she had been attacked from behind by a man wearing a mask. Pasco stated that “cruel assumptions that people affected by drugs cannot remember and cannot feel it their duty to break a habit of a lifetime and give evidence because a girl has died.”

Pascoe also spoke to the jury, adding how “for all her [Brown's] imperfections, why other wise would she tell us in detail she did witness the crime? Because she was there”. Pascoe reminded the jury of Freeman's evidence, stating she had found a “blood splash” on a top, adding that despite the lack of forensic evidence, Benguit and Gbadhamosi had up to six weeks (before their arrests), to “get rid of the most crucial evidence”. He told the jury that Shin's killer, in a “violent outburst of aggression” had stabbed Shin multiple times. He stated “Oki was killed by someone who lost it. Omar Benguit killed Oki. That's the case of the Crown.”

Defence closing speech
On 23 April, the jury were told by Nsugbe: “There can be no heavier burden than to stand falsely accused of murder, falsely accused or rape”, adding “An innocent young Korean girl lost her life on the streets of Bournemouth. It was a senseless and endless killing”.

“…a man aged in his early 30s (Benguit) stands accused of killing her (Shin). Another man (Gbadamosi), stands accused of helping him (Benguit) after the event to dispose of incriminating evidence. As we know Omar Benguit is also charged with rape. It is said he raped the main prosecution witness.”

Nsugbe stated that Brown was the “most important”, adding “She says that she was present at the scene of a murder. She says that later that same day, within roughly 24 hours, she was a victim of a horrific rape and later again she says she was raped again”. He stated there were “inconsistencies” and “lies” in Brown's account, adding “When we look at the evidence it does not fit in with what she says”, asking the jury to look at Brown's personal circumstances in 2002, at a time when she was working for a number of dealers in what was suggested as not being “a happy existence”.

The jury were reminded by Nsugbe about Sheridan and how on the day Brown had told Sheridan she wanted to be out of the drug's world, she started to ‘feed police’ with “snippets of information” about an alleged murder and rape. Nsugbe questioned why Brown would “put herself through all this just to lie”, but it wouldn't occur to someone “in a desperate situation”, wondering whether the information was a “fair return for a new life”. He reminded the jury that Brown had provide police with incorrect names and addresses for Benguit and Gbadhamosi, calling this “a sorry collection of lies”.

Further CCTV from outside a wine bar on Charminster Road, showed Gbadamosi's car at approximately 03:13 BST on 12 July 2002, with someone getting out of his car to use a phonebox, contradicting the timing that Brown had stated Gbadamosi had been with the group.

Judge's summary
High Court Judge Sir Ian Kennedy told the jury to keep their deliberations ‘free from sympathy and consider the trustworthiness of certain witnesses’, as he summarised the facts of the case. He stated: “This case presents, doesn't it, an immensely tragic and dismal story. Immensely tragic because Oki, as we call her, Oki's life was quite wrongfully taken away”. He continued: “You reach your decision free from sympathy and free from antipathy, a calm, measured appraisal of the evidence”.

Sir Kennedy told the jury: “Whoever stabbed Oki in the violent way she was stabbed can have intended her nothing other than to kill her or cause her serious harm.” He described Brown as the “central witness”, stating she had ‘explained away irragulatiries in her various statements as due to a mistrust of the police and a fear of the drug community’. He stated that there was a ‘lack of scientific evidence’ to directly link the defendants to the scene.

Continuing his summing-up speech, Sir Kennedy stated how Benguit had “denied he was in any way involved in Oki's death or knew anything useful about it”. He added that Benguit had said it was all “nonsense”, reminding the jury Benguit had said he was at his home address on Linwood Road with another drug addict on 11 July.

Deliberations and verdicts
At just after 14:00 on 27 April, the jury retired to consider their verdicts, with Sir Kennedy telling them they had three questions to ask themselves: whether the prosecution made them sure that Benguit had murdered Shin, that the proaction made them sure on all the evidence that Gbadamosi disposed of evidence and that they were sure Benguit had raped Brown.

In spite of the lack of forensic evidence and CCTV, and the reliability of the accounts of the main witness being questioned with the discovery of the speed camera footage, the jury again failed to reach a verdict for Benguit regarding the murder of Shin.

On 29 April, the jury acquitted Benguit of the rape charge and Gbadamosi of assisting Benguit in the murder of Shin, with Gbadamosi walking free from the court room. However, having deliberated for more than 11 hours, they could not reach a verdict on the charge of murder against Benguit.

Application for a second retrial (third trial) (2005)
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), applied for permission for a third trial. This was granted by then Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Kenneth Macdonald QC, in January 2005. This was a rare step for the DPP to take, when considering this was despite Brown having been found to by lying, in naming Gbadamosi as having been involved in raping her. The defence argued that this was 'oppressive conduct' by the Crown.

After the third retrial, then Crown Court Unit Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Roger Hall would state that: "It is a convention that if you have two trials, you will not attempt a third trial", but that the prosecution team, barristers, CPS and police "all took the view that justice required a verdict one way or another".

It was the first case in Dorset that a defendant had been tried for the same offence three times.

Second retrial (third trial) (2005)
With Gbadamosi acquitted, Benguit was the only suspect left.

Benguit's third trial was held at Winchester Crown Court, presided over by Mrs Justice Heather Hallett, with a jury of eight men and four women.

All the other witnesses that the prosecution relied on were known drug addicts and sex workers as was Benguit, who was a problematic heroin user. All evidence from these witnesses was purely circumstantial - one of the witnesses provided a statement to police stating that they had 'put words in her mouth'.

Witnesses give evidence
Fourteen witnesses claimed to have seen Benguit immediately after the murder. Of those key witnesses, all but one had a drug addiction, with the majority of witnesses who gave evidence were described as having 'serious drug problems'. At one point, Mrs Justice Hallett told the jury: "'You may have despaired, members of the jury, on occasions during the trial at the sordid picture of the lifestyle that you have seen and heard emerge...I do not know if you expected it to come from an area like Bournemouth. One witness seemed almost immune to her misery; you remember the girl that had no home and sold herself on the streets at night. A horrid, horrid tale. These witnesses just seemed to live from one fix to the next.'"

Beverly Brown
A key prosecution witness, Brown gave evidence again at the second retrial, to which Mrs Justice Hallet later told the jury: "If ever there was an example of what drugs can do to you, you may think it was her".

Unliked the other drug addicts who had testified, Brown's version of events to the court had significant detail, despite contradictory details.

Brown told the court: "'Omar got out. Nick got out. Darius got out. I got out and stood up. I couldn't see where they had gone. i got back in the car and started to make a cannabis joint. I didn't have time to finish it before they came back.'"

Unnamed woman
An unnamed woman gave evidence at the trial, where she stated that one of Benguit's brothers approached her, saying that Benguit had said he had been with her on the night of the murder and that if she was to say that in court, he would pay her £5,000. She stated that she was left with 'no doubt that they'd pay me £5,000'.

John Kelly (Steve McIntosh)
One witness, McIntosh (not his real name and identified as the pseudonym Steve McIntosh), whose lifestyle was described as 'horrible and chaotic' by Mrs Justice Hallett, described how he and his girlfriend were present at the crackhouse on St Clements Road during the early hours of the 12 July 2002. McIntosh recalled how Benguit had been 'desperate to score' and that him and his girlfriend had seen him use a towel at the address. The couple recalled the date due to it being the Orange Day parade.

Sarah Cooper
Another witness at the crackhouse, Cooper (not her real name), recalled Benguit had entered her room 'sweating, looking flustered and wanting to change his top'. Cooper told the court that she wasn't: "Totally obliterated", in reference to intoxication.

Steve Roberts
Roberts (not his real name), who Brown had earlier claimed to have driven around on the night of the murder as he broke into vehicles to pay for his crack cocaine habit, told the court that he rememerbed how Brown had taken his car to give Benguit a lift, who had appeared 'panicky'. Asked if he was 'out of it' at the time he was recalling, he replied: "Yes - and no."

Amanda Freeman (Helen Vine)
Freeman (identified as the pseudonym Helen Vine), another drug addict and prostitute, admitting that she would steal from her clients, was living with Benguit a week before the murder, having been released from prison. She told the court that Benguit was 'not very stable' and had seen blood on his clothing. Vine told the court how Benguit had boasted about having 'stabbed a student in Charminster', before later, under cross examination, accepting that the precise words may have just been hers.

Molly Andrews
Andrews (not her real name) told the court that she had previously seen Benguit in possession of a knife.

Jury's reaction
One of the jury member's spoke to a BBC reporter after the trial, saying: "Looking at Omar in court, I was frightened of him. But I did have serious concerns about their main witness [Brown]. I felt at times she was unfit to give evidence as she appeared heavily intoxicated".

A jury of eight men and four women unanimously found Benguit found guilty of the murder of Shin in under five hours, despite shockingly, the lack of physical evidence to link him to the murder. As the verdict was delivered, Benguit shouted from the dock: "I'm innocent, I didn't do it".

Sentencing
In her sentencing remarks, Justice Heather Hallett told Benguit that having been 'fuelled by drink and crack cocaine', he had attempted to get Shin to go with him. She added that she had no doubt that Benguit's motive was sexual and that when she rejected him, he reacted angrily, stabbing her three times in the back, with violence she described as 'gratuitous'. She sentenced Benguit to life imprisonment, with a minimum of 20-years-imprisonment by Justice Hallett at Winchester Crown Court.

Reactions
The officer leading the case, Detective Inspector Kevin Connelly stated that he welcomed the outcome 'on behalf of Oki's parents', describing Benguit as a 'very violent and dangerous offender whose sexual desires drove him to murder Oki'. In reference to fellow drug addicts giving evidence, Detective Superintendent Phil James added that the case showed that 'Dorset Police and [drug addicts and people with drug problems], can work together [to see that justice is done]'.

After Benguit's conviction, on 4 February, it was reported that Detective Superintendent Phil James, head of Dorset Police's Major Crime Investigation Team (MCIT) warned the killer of Heather Barnett, who had been killed three roads away in Charminster and at that time, was an unsolved case, that police would 'never give up'. DSU James added that Benguit being convicted took three years and that they were determined to bring Barnett's killer to justice, 'regardless of the length of time it takes'.

First appeal
On 12 July 2005, three years after the murder, Benguit's first appeal of his conviction took place in the Court of Appeal. Benguit worked with lawyer Giovanni Di Stefano, who had overturned Nicholas van Hoogstraten's manslaughter conviction in 2003.

Anthony Donne QC stood as Benguit's counsel in the appeal but had not represented him at any previous trials.

The first ground of appeal, made by Anthony Donne, was that the ruling to allow a second retrial was wrong. The second retrial was allowed on the grounds that it was in the public's interest to obtain a conviction, however his defence argued that it was unjust.

The second ground for appeal was the allowance of evidence from two witnesses who had apparently at some point in the past seen Benguit carrying a knife, similar to that used in the murder.

The defence also wished to draw attention to the fact that Brown's evidence should not have been admissible in the second retrial as it had been proved to be unreliable. She had given a number of different versions about the offence, including lying in her first and second statements on her own admission. Donne argued that due to the lack of forensic evidence and reliance on hearsay evidence of admitted drug addicts, the ruling to allow a second retrial was wrong.

The appeal was dismissed as the Court of Appeal concluded that the decision made by the judge, Justice Hallett, to allow a second retrial was correct. The process of the second retrial was not unjust nor prejudicial.

Di Stefano announced shortly after the appeal was rejected, that Benguit's solicitors, Paul Martin and Co, had sent a letter to the House of Lords, petitioning a question to the lords regarding how the prosecution at Benguit's final trial 'failed to adduce bad character evidence using the correct law'. This followed Di Stefano having already submitted Benguit's case to the European Court of Human Rights. It was later reported that the petition to the House of Lords was refused.

Second appeal
In May 2010, Benguit applied for the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to review his conviction.

In June 2010, it was reported that the CCRC were 'considering the case'. Des Jenson, Benguit's lawyer told the BBC that CCTV footage from shopfront cameras, supplied to Benguit's defence team by Dorset Police, which had not been viewed by any previous defence team. The footage showed the car that Benguit was allegedly in at the time the murder occurred, was not at the scene. Jensen added that he believed the footage was contradictory to evidence that Brown had provided at previous trials, with a forensic expert examining the footage '20 minutes either side of the attack' and that 'nowhere does it show the vehicle Mr Benguit allegedly got out of to attack Miss Shin.' This footage had been supplied to the CCRC.

They also added that a witness who had given evidence during the first two trials that Benguit had confessed the murder to him had since retracted his statement.

2012 CCRC referral
In December 2012, it was reported that the CCRC had referred Benguit's case to the Court of Appeal, following a successful application to the review body, and on 9 April 2014 the appeal took place.

Brown tells a different version of events on the Jeremy Kyle show
The evidence used by Benguit's defence team was that Beverly Brown, the lead witness, had appeared on the ITV show the Jeremy Kyle Show, giving a different account of the crime than what she gave in the original trials. Brown's appearance on the show happeend after she had given an interview to a women's magazine, which was published in November 2007, detailing how she had seen Benguit 'plunging a knife into the woman's back.

Whilst on the Jeremy Kyle Show, Brown said:

"'I pulled over. One got out with the other one, followed after a couple of seconds or minutes by the third. Because I couldn't park straightaway, I pulled forward a little. And then I got out of the car to see what was going on, and as I looked around, all I saw was shadows - not clearly, but I could see her. I saw Omar plunge a knife into her. She gave this scream. She just dropped down. I think he did it more than once. She dropped down, they got into the car, then they told me to 'drive, drive, turn the lights off'.'"

Brown briefly mentioned that she had later been raped, adding that: "I had my womb rebuilt. They left me dead by the side of a river".

Having revealed to Jeremy Kyle an idea of seeing Omar Benguit performing/executing the murder act, this information significantly differed from that given during the trials where she said she had not witnessed the murder of Shin - in fact, Brown had been unable to correctly identify the location on the road where Shin had been attacked.The credibility of Brown was tested before the jury, and it was concluded that although Brown exaggerated her account of the crime, the essence of the crime never changed and the appearance was not done for financial gain. The judges concluded that Brown's account had "significant circumstantial support" from other witnesses.

The Court of Appeal did not question the reliability of Brown's evidence, despite the allegations she had made about being raped proved to be 'nothing more than extravagant fantasy', with Brown having lied in implicating Gbadamosi in Shin's murder and Brown's subsequent rape. Furthermore, the court didn't appear to find issues that Brown's account of what vehicle she was driving had changed and that there was no physical evidence linking Benguit or the other men to the vehicles. Two experts failure to identify conclusively either of the cars Brown stated she was in on CCTV between 02:30 BST and 03:05 BST was disposed with, as footage didn't exclude the cars

On 25 March 2014, Benguit appeared via video link at the Court of Appeal. It was also argued by the defence that an Italian man, Danilo Restivo, convicted of two other murders who was living in the area at the time, was a more likely suspect for the crime. Furthermore, Benguit's legal team had claimed than an independent expert had verified that a knife Restivo was located with when he was searched in 2004, matched wounds inflicted on Shin, by an 'identical knife'. It was suggested that the murder of Shin resembled similarities between Restivo's other murders. Restivo murdered Elisa Claps on 12 September 1993 and Heather Barnett, who was killed in her home on 12 November 2002. However, the judges argued that there were numerous differences between the murder of Miss Claps and Mrs Barnett, and that of Miss Shin, for Restivo to be a 'viable alternative suspect'.

The court did recognise that the case was not supported by any forensic evidence, however it was argued that there was 'significant circumstantial support' against Benguit. This included previous convictions for carrying a knife, blood found on his clothing after the crime and an apparent confession made by Benguit to stabbing a student in Charminster. Lady Justice Rafferty, Justice Cranston and Justice Stewart dismissed the appeal.

After the result of the second appeal, Detective Inspector Kevin Connolly, speaking on behalf of Dorset Police, said to BBC South Today: "It was a difficult case where the evidence was thoroughly tested by all parties. It's gone before the Criminal Case Review Committee [sic], they've looked at it, it's gone before the Court of Appeal twice now, everybody's satisfied with the evidence that's been presented for the jury. This is a safe conviction."

After the verdict, University of Portsmouth Criminologist, Barry Loveday told BBC South Today: "I'm very, very upset. I know the family are devastated. It took three trials to convict Omar, this is now his second appeal. It's taking on the form of a major miscarriage of justice."

In their Autumn 2015 British Journal of American Legal Studies article 'Off Track', Director Marika Henneberg and a member of the board of advisors, Barry Loveday from the University of Portsmouth's Criminal Justice Clinic, stated that: 'The fact that no physical evidence has ever been found to link Benguit to the murder, even thought this is a crime where such evidence could be expected, is significant and needs to be fully explored within the context of a further appeal'.

Third Appeal
On 5 May 2021, a follow up BBC documentary entitled 'Unsolved: An Alibi for Omar' was released, showcasing reporter Bronagh Munro uncovering new evidence that cast doubt on Benguit's conviction. Her evidence would form the third appeal against Benguit's conviction. It showcased how Benguit's sister discovered CCTV from 2002 that showed Benguit on the night of 11 July 2002. He was first seen in the Richmond Arms pub at approximately 20:36 BST (which police confirmed was Benguit) and later, at the Slam bar on Fir Vale Road at approximately 22:03 BST and 22:38 BST. The similarities to the man on CCTV was described by a BBC reporter as 'striking'. This proved that the version of events Benguit gave in interview when he was arrested in 2002, stating he may have potentially been out in Bournemouth, was true.

In relation to his interview, Benguit had asked police repeatedly to check the CCTV. Munro checked CCTV stills in 2021, which showed an image of the back of a bald-headed man that she thought may be Benguit, walking away from a phonebox on Charminster Road, just after the murder had occurred, at 03:15 BST on 12 July 2002. At the time he was seen, the prosecution, relying on Brown's account, had previously alleged that Benguit was at the crack house on St Clement's Road, cleaning himself up, which would completely undermine her whole account.

Munro showed a still image of the CCTV to Benguit's sister, who stated that she had never seen the image previously. She identified the man in the footage as Benguit.

Whilst the quality of the still was poor, the reporter checked the two other still images, of Benguit being sighted at the pub and bar, earlier on the evening of 11 July. The man in the CCTV footage from near to the phonebox on Charminster Road appeared to be wearing a hooded jacket of the same length and white trainers, matching the description of Benguit in the other CCTV footage. The only noticeable difference was the colour of Benguit's trousers, however, Munro considered this may have been the lighting.

During his interviews, Benguit had told police that he had seen the roadblock and flashing lights of emergency vehicles; something he could have easily seen from the phonebox he was near to on CCTV, which is just over 100 metres from the entrance to Malmesbury Park Road. It shocked Munro, as whilst police had the CCTV images at the time, which potentially was Benguit, it was never put to him in interview, despite his repeated requests for CCTV to be checked. Previously, in 2012, Dorset Police confirmed that 'all relevant material was fully disclosed' in their murder investigation and that they had 'fully complied' with the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. This possible confirmation of an alibi for Benguit was put to his solicitor, Des Jenson, who as of 2021, had worked for free on Benguit's case for ten years. Jenson had never seen the CCTV still from Charminster Road and believed it was key to the case, in which he thought the resemblance of the man in the CCTV to Benguit was strong.

However, Jenson had discovered CCTV that showed how a few seconds earlier, the man who was thought to be Benguit, had gotten out of a red car, at a timestamp of 03:15:35 BST, which belonged to Gbadamosi.

It transpired that it was a later still, with a time stamp of 03:15:38 BST, that had been used as evidence at court, with the male not being identifiable, with Gbadamosi later having told Munro in her 2018 documentary, he couldn't remember who the person was.This was evidence that helped Gbadamosi get acquitted. However, this would prove a problem if the car was Gbadamosi's, due to both him and Benguit insisting repeatedly that they had never been in a car together.

It was considered whether the man in the CCTV could still be Benguit, which would have meant Gbadamosi and Benguit had lied to Munro about the car; Gbadamosi had claimed in Munro's 2018 documentary that him and Benguit were only passing acquaintances and he'd only had one quick talk with him, asking if he was alright, when he appeared to pass him in a crack house.

Munro met with Gbadamosi, to confront him about the new evidence. Prior to this, Gbadamosi mentioned that he was still living with the case, recounting how some people may tell him that his situation was unfortunate and horrible, regarding being accused of rape that he protested he hadn't done (and was acquitted of), but in their own minds, would still wonder whether he was responsible.

Munro asked Gbadamosi whether he had seen the CCTV stills from Charminster Road before, with Gbadamosi confirming he had and that it was his car in the images. Gbadamosi added that he couldn't remember being at the scene, however, during the trial, police had stated it was his car. Munro asked who was getting out of his car on the CCTV stills, with Gbadamosi, with the same answer as he'd given before in the 2018 documentary, repeating he didn't know, reiterating he had no recollection of it. Gbadamosi thought that the clearer still, which appeared to be Benguit, could in fact be him. Munro took him back to the first CCTV still of the man getting out of his car and asked Gbadamosi again whether it was Benguit. Gbadamosi replied that it wasn't, reiterating how he had never had a conversation with Benguit or had ever been in a car with him.

As Munro was about to show more CCTV stills to Gbadamosi, Benguit rang his sister from prison. Gbadamosi, without introducing himself, said hello, with Benguit appearing to recognise his voice and say his first name, 'Nick'. Gbadamosi asked Benguit over the phone whether he had ever been in a car with him, to which Benguit replied 'No, no, 110%' and before they both appeared at court, they had never had a conversation together. Benguit stated that he had seen Gbadamosi in a house, recalling how he didn't think the pair had spoken.

If Benguit had said it was him in the car, he would have had an alibi, however, both him and Gbadamosi continued to insist that Benguit have never been in Gbadamosi's vehicle. Gbadamosi stated that he understood how if they both accepted it was Benguit in the car, it would give both Benguit and Gbadamosi and alibi. Gbadamosi retorically asked, 'what am I going to do - lie?'.

Munro added that she was convinced that both Benguit and Gbadamosi were telling the truth about the CCTV of Gbadamosi's vehicle. Munro understood that the only way the person could be Benguit, is if the police were wrong and it wasn't Gbadamosi's vehicle that pulled up next to the phone box. Munro only had black and white CCTV footage and needed to get colour CCTV footage from Dorset Police to verify who the person in the images was.

Munro also looked closer at the weapon that was used to stab Shin, a six-inch blade that had never been located. Dorset Police used witnesses, such as Leanne Meyer, to prove Benguit carried a knife with a similar description, however, Munro had concerns about that evidence, learning how the same description of the knife had been given by another witness, Jonathon Cutting, with both of them believing the process to gather the evidence was unfair.

Later, Dorset Police agreed that Benguit's sister could have a copy of the coloured CCTV, with Munro, Benguit's sister and Benguit's lawyer, Jenson, meeting outside of Poole Police station. Jenson wasn't sure why they would only be given a copy and not the original, stating that if what they were looking for wasn't on the CCTV, then they would have to go back to Dorset Police. Benguit's sister told Munro that she hadn't told her brother at that stage about the CCTV and would tell him if she found what she was looking for on the footage, crossing her fingers.

Jenson stated that he had to sign to say that the footage would not be disclosed to any party without prior consultation with Dorset Police, meaning only him and Benguit's sister could see it. This meant that Munro couldn't be shown the footage, with him only being able to tell her what he saw and not directly show her.

Jenson described the footage as being full-screen and full colour, being better than the black and white CCTV stills. The colour of the car was blue, which meant it wasn't Gbadamosi's vehicle and that 50ft down the same road, was a red saloon car, meaning that it could still be Benguit on the CCTV footage. Benguit's sister explained to Munro that a person who looked 'exactly like Omar comes out', with it not being clear to see him going into the telephone kiosk, but that someone who looks 'exactly like him' leaves the phone box and walk up. Jenson concluded that having seen the CCTV footage that police seized from the Slam nightclub, it showed Benguit was dressed 'identically' to the CCTV footage from Charminster Road, but that the facial-recognition would struggle to identify Benguit, due to there not being footage showing the man face-on to the camera.

Jenson had the coloured footage analysed by an expert, which didn't reveal conclusive findings, due to there not being footage of the man's face. However, looking at the man's head, clothes and shoes, the expert stated there were 'strong similarities' to the man that had been identified as Benguit in the other CCTV images.

In terms of the third appeal, Jenson stated: "I would say that our chances are good. If I didn't think that, I don't think I would be spending as much time on this, nor would other people." Interviewing some of the witnesses that Munro located, they were supporting Benguit's appeal. They had all retracted their statements that they made in 2003, standing by none of their evidence, something that Jenson described as 'hugely significant'. Jenson explained: "You have to ask yourself where did the information that found its way into those statements come from? Because it didn't come from them".

Jenson added that since picking up the case, he was of the opinion that it was a miscarriage of justice and having read and seen everything since, including everyone that he had spoken to, he was only further convinced that he was correct about his initial impression and that Benguit's case was a 'grave miscarriage of justice'.

Concluding the documentary, Munro outlined how Shin's dying words were ignored; that Restivo, who would later become a double murderer, wasn't investigated properly; five prosecution witnesses had admitted lying in court and; CCTV footage that could have provided Benguit with an alibi. As a result of failings, Munro added that Benguit had spent 20 years in prison for murder.

An appeal was sent to the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) on 4 May 2021. On 7 May 2021, it was reported by the Bournemouth Echo that the CCRC had told them: “This is his second application to us and, as with all re-applications, will be subject to an initial triage to determine if there is any significant new evidence and/or argument before an informed decision can be taken to review it or not.”

Danilo Restivo
In May 2002, an Italian man named Danilo Restivo arrived in England from Italy and moved to Bournemouth. On 12 November 2002, Heather Barnett was found dead in her home. There had been an attempt to remove her head, resulting in a bad injury to her neck. There was also a lock of hair placed in her right hand; however, the hair found was not from the victim. In March 2010, the body of Elisa Claps, who had disappeared on 12 September 1993, was found in a church in Italy. In addition, a clump of hair had been cut from her head and placed in her hand shortly after her death. The Italian investigators found DNA and other evidence that indicated that Restivo was the murderer of Claps. Following the discovery of DNA linking Restivo to the murder of Heather Barnett, he was put on trial for murder and got sentenced to a whole life sentence in 2011. On appeal, his sentence was reduced to 40 years. Restivo is currently in prison in England, and unlikely to ever be released from custody as he would be deported to Italy immediately upon release to serve a life sentence for the murder of Elisa Claps.

Even before Benguit had become a suspect, Dorset Police were aware of Restivo, having been contacted by Interpol in Rome, who, three weeks after Shin was murdered, sent a fax headed: 'Query relating to murder of South Korean in Dorset'. It explained how Restivo had moved to Bournemouth in May of 2002, with him being 'strongly suspected' of having committed another murder (that being of Claps in 1993). The Italian authorities had warned how Restivo had 'a complex personality and is mentally unstable', adding 'his altered behaviour can result in violent reactions'. During the second appeal, Benguit's defence suggested that the true murderer of Jong-Ok Shin was Danilo Restivo, who has since been found guilty of two murders, occurring on 12 September 1993 and 12 November 2002. Furthermore, at the time of Shin's murder, Restivo was living a few roads away and walking distance from the scene on Malmesbury Park Road. Jenson, Benguit's defence solicitor told a BBC documentary in 2018, that the fact Restivo had killed on the 12th of a month was more than coincidental to prove his potential involvement in Shin's murder. Jenson outlined that police surveillance had followed Restivo on the 12th of a month - 12 May 2004. This had caught Restivo hiding in bushes in the Throop area of Bournemouth, wearing a winter coat on a summer's day, stalking lone woman. The police feared he was going to attack, so broke cover and on searching Restivo's car, a balaclava and six-inch knife were located. The knife located perfectly fitted the description of the knife pathologists thought had been used to stab Shin with, with Jenson reminding Munro of Shin's repeated acknowledgement that the man who attacked her had been wearing a mask.

Jenson explained that at the second appeal trial at the Court of Appeal in 2014, this information was considered, however, dismissed it, stating that the murders were different to Claps and Barnett, with the court describing Shin's murder as 'opportunistic' and Claps' and Barnett's murders as ones that were carefully planned.

Geographic profiler, Colin Johnson, thought that Dorset Police and the courts were wrong in relation to Restivo not being involved, as the way in which serial killers commit murder doesn't always happen in the same way.

Attending the scene with a BBC reporter for a 2021 documentary, Johnson felt the offender was familiar with the area of Malmsebury Park Road, using it 'naturally', stating the reason for that would be because he didn't live very far away from the scene. With this in mind, he personally felt that Restivo could have been the suspect. As had been seen with Restivo being watched stalking lone woman hiding in bushes, an alleyway close to where Shin's body was found could have provided Restivo cover prior to the attack.

Jenson also argued that 'anybody who is stalking the streets at 02:30 in the morning in a quiet Bournemouth suburb has planned, he knows exactly what he's doing. There are not going to be a lot of people around and once he has identified and followed his victim, he is likely to be able to operate without being disturbed', stating that was what his suggestion was regarding Restivo's involvement.

Jenson provided it was important to remember that the evidence that convicted Benguit was also circumstantial to comparisons that it was a coincidence Restivo had killed on the 12th day of a month, with Brown's evidence 'highly suspect'.

A local woman, known only as 'Jill', who at the time was friends with Marsango, reported Restivo to police regarding Shin's murder, knowing about Restivo, after he moved into Marsango's address of her friends. Jill was aware that Restivo had met Marsango via the internet and explained that he had been in prison. Marsango explained to Jill that Restivo was being listened to on the phone, so he had to be careful what he said to her.

Jill stated that the first time she met Restivo, she scared her. She described Restivo as having a large scar across his neck, with clear, starey eyes and a raspy voice (this was as a result of failed surgery). Jill stated she found Restivo to be creepy and had said to her husband at the time that she had a feeling that something was going to happen. Jill explained that soon after Shin was murdered, she went to visit Marsango, and heard the couple talking about the murder whilst they were in the garden. She explained how Restivo started speaking in Italian to Marsango, who translated what Restivo was saying, which was that Shin had been stabbed with a kitchen knife. Jill wondered how Restivo knew this information. Restivo also remarked how the knife 'must have gone through' Shin, which was right (a wound had gone through her back to her front). However, at that time, this information hadn't been released to the public. Jill informed the police of her concerns, who seemed to appear as if they didn't want to know about Restivo.

Whilst Restivo has been accused of committing the murder of Shin on 12 July 2002 in Bournemouth, police didn't pursue him as a suspect, discounting him early into investigating Shin's murder, having received an alibi from his girlfriend, Fiamma Marsango, who later became Restivo's wife. Marsango had told police that as a light sleeper, she had been certain that on the night Shin was killed, Restivo had been in bed.

Despite this claim, Jill believed that Marsango wasn't always aware of what Restivo was doing, with him disappearing a number of times, leaving Marsango wondering where he was, with Restivo appearing to go missing for periods of time. Jill explained that Marsango had told her that whilst she was sleeping upstairs, Restivo was sleeping downstairs, in a room by the door; this was not unusual as the couple didn't share a bed (which was confirmed by a student who lived with the couple). Benguit's sister stated that a man matching Restivo's build was seen on CCTV on the night of the murder, near to the murder scene.

A clump of hair was found at the very spot where the victim had been stabbed, which threw suspicion onto Restivo. Just before the 2nd appeal in 2014 Dorset Police produced a witness statement for the first time from a woman who had apparently been identified from the hair and who stated that she had lived opposite the crime scene. She recalled using a mobile hairdresser 12 years earlier and implied that she may have deposited the clump of hair in the rubbish bins which somehow was blown to the spot where the victim was stabbed. Other reasons that may link Restivo to the murder of Jong-Ok Shin include the finding of a balaclava in Restivo's possession. Shin described her murderer to have been wearing a mask before she was taken to hospital. Furthermore, an identical knife to that used to attack Shin was found in Restivo's bag when he was arrested in 2004 for another offence. Finally a man resembling Restivo carrying a satchel was seen on CCTV near the crime scene at six minutes past the time of the murder. This evidence was not relied on by Benguit's barrister Rag Chand who was dismissed from the case by Benguit's family following the court of appeal decision.

At the time Benguit and Gbadamosi were charged with Shin's murder, Dorset Police recorded that 'Restivo is not a suspect in this enquiry, but is worth of further note as he is still subject of ongoing enquiries of a disappearance of a girl in Italy'.

Exactly four months to the day that Shin was murdered, Restivo murdered Barnett.

In conclusion, there were several striking similarities between Shin's murder and the murder's that Restivo committed of Claps and Barnett, which included all of the women:


 * being killed on the 12th of the month
 * being small and dark-haired
 * being attacked from behind with a bladed instrument
 * living locally to Restivo

Lee
Lee, a former partner of Shin, was arrested by police on 13 July 2002, on suspicion of Shin's murder.

In January 2002, Shin had been in a relationship with a Korean boy named Lee. However, the same month, Shin ended the relationship, which upset Lee. Shin told her friend that the reason she had done so was because Lee embarrassed her, due to appearing to her as a 'stereotypical Pusan city male' and that she wanted to experience 'something different'.

Another Korean student, Gi Tim, who was a friend of both Lee and Shin, provided a statement that contradicted the relationship that Shin and Lee appeared to have. She told police that Lee had told her how in April 2002, he had stayed with Shin at her address in Shelbourne Road, where the pair had sex, but that Shin had ended the relationship thereafter. Tim told police that Shin had established a close-relationship with another student at the language school, a Spanish male, whom Shin was seen with at the Richmond Arms pub on one occasion, publicly kissing and hugging him. Tim recalled how she had told Lee about Shin kissing this male.

Lee was living with a host family. On 14 July 2002, a couple of days after Shin was murdered, a member of the host family, Paul Durden, gave a statement to police, telling them that on the day of the murder, he had noticed that a kitchen knife had gone missing from the knife block in the kitchen. Durden had worked on a fish farm and part of his job was to sharpen knives, so the knife itself was part of a set that were all very sharp. Providing another statement later on 14 July, Durden told police that at 22:00 BST that day, opening the dish-washer, he had located the missing knife, lying on the top tray. Whilst the knife wasn't immediately linked to Lee, Durden had felt it important enough to immediately contact police regarding his discovery.

Having been released without charge, Lee returned to South Korea.

Sang Kyun Choe
In a number of witness statements, it was apparent that Shin had been systematically harassed by a Korean student, who was known to her.

Shin's friend, Sueem Keem, was one of the people who provided a statement to this effect. She had worked with Shin as a part-time cleaner at the operations centre of Chase Manhattan Bank, in the Littledown area of Bournemouth.

Keem told police that despite unwanted by Shin, the student would frequently wait outside of the bank when the pair were about to finish work. Keem stated that she had seen the student on five or six occasions, approaching Shin. Shin had initially talked to him, but Keem told police that as time had continued, she didn't want to talk to him, leaving him quickly on her bicycle. Keem described how, on a number of occasions, as the student approached her and Shin as they left the bank, Shin would run away.

Keem explained that Shin had told her the student was 'a nuisance to her', and that Shin didn't like him. Shin found the student 'bothersome', thinking he was attempting to get close to her, but didn't appear or say she was frightened by him.

Keem described the student as a male, aged 27 to 28 years-old, 167 cm (5 ft, 4 inches) tall, of thin build, with quite brown skin, who wore his long curly black hair in a pony-tail style, as well as wearing black framed glasses.

This matched the description of a man, Choe, a Korean student who, like Shin, was studying English and also resided in the Charminster area.

A student who knew Choe described how his behaviour was 'quite strange', where he would 'laugh at things that others did not find funny'. It was described that he liked a Japanese girl, who, despite not having a relationship with, he would 'wait outside her house until 2 or 3am when she had gone to disco', which a fellow student described as 'really strange'.

It was described that Choe could act very aggressively towards girls that he didn't know well - in one case, in earlier 2002, a teacher of Choe ejected him from a class, after he had behaved aggressively to two female students. Choe's teacher stated that his personality effected other students within the class, observing that they didn't like him, not wanting to work in a group with him. Choe's teacher explained how other teachers had experienced 'similar problems'. The teacher noted that he found Choe 'strange and different from the rest', with Choe not wanting to or not knowing 'how to integrate with other students, getting an unusual impression that 'other students did not want to socialise with him'.

Another of Choe's teachers described him as domineering, in which he 'came across as a very determined person', shown by how Choe would 'often shout out questions and would insist on an answer immediately', adding 'when he got his own way he was very charming but was very stubborn if things didn't go his way'.

Choe was eventually expelled from his course for being aggressive towards female students.

Prior to 7 July 2002, Choe had cut his hair, with his landlady noting how she used to annoy him by referring to his haircut.

Florence Pui Kong, who shared an address with Shin, reported to police that Choe had visited Shin on 8 July 2002, the week of her murder, but wasn't aware of the details of a conversation the pair had.

On 11 July 2002, the night before the murder, Choe's landlady stated that she 'was sure' that Choe was not in his room between 23:00 and 00:00 BST; her room was next to his.

During the murder enquiry, police interviewed Choe on two occasions. Within the second interview, they suggested that Choe had previously attended the Chase Manhattan Bank operations centre in Littledown, in order to attack Shin. Choe denied this suggestion and stated he was not a murderer. Due to lack of evidence, he was released.

The witness statements regarding Shin being harassed by this student prior to her murder, where he exhibited odd behaviour, was not used in any of the trials.

Life in prison
Whilst remanded in custody for the duration of his first two trials, Benguit suffered a series of brutal attacks.

Benguit has been imprisoned in HM Prison Wakefield and HM Prison Long Lartin.

Whilst at HM Prison Wakefield, Benguit was moved to solitary confinement. He had previously been on a hunger strike for eight days, as well as committing a dirty protest.

On 31 August 2017, whilst at HM Prison Wakefield, it was reported that convicted child-murderer Stuart Hazell, who murdered Tia Sharp in 2012, had stabbed Benguit three times. He was then moved to HM Prison Long Lartin.

Benguit's family's thoughts
When Benguit was sent to prison, having been convicted of murder, it left the Benguit family 'devastated'.

Benguit's sister Amie stated how their lives had been 'completlely destroyed'. She believes that her brother is not responsible for Shin's murder and believes in justice, having what she believes is evidence in who really murdered Shin. She stated that she would not stop until she proved that her brother was innocent and that what kept her going was knowing that the truth would emerge.She added that Benguit's mother cries 'every single day'.

She believes that Dorset Police framed her brother as the murderer, stating that 'they know what they did and they got away with it'. She stated that police chose the witnesses, who were all drug addicts, with the police 'pushing other drug addicts into backing up' Brown's account.

Benguit's sister had spoken to some of the drug-addicts herself, in an attempt to find answers. However, she stated that slowly, they would look to speak to her, mentioning how the police coerced and put them up to providing an account. One person said that he lied in his statement in order to get a reduced sentence for another crime he had committed. She added that some 'couldn't live with what they had done', and how they had lied on the basis they thought Benguit would never be convicted. She stated that they didn't need to seek her out to apologies for mistakes, but that it showed a potential importance to them.

A question that Benguit's sister had asked for a number of years was who else could have been responsible for Shin's murder. One person she thought may be responsible was Danillo Restivo, who had moved to Bournemouth in 2002, (a few roads from the crime scene). Whilst Shin's murder was different to Barnett's murder (who Restivo killed exactly four months to the day), Benguit's sister didn't think that Restivo had time to finish what he had planned, if he was responsible for Shin's murder. Benguit's sister thought that Restivo would have dragged Shin into a nearby secluded alleyway to where she was murdered. She thought that Restivo didn't have time, due to Shin screaming and neighbours attending to her, with something causing Restivo to flee. Regarding hair located at the scene, Benguit's sister said 'it is just far too much of a coincidence to find hair' within the crime scene of Shin's murder, especially given that Restivo would later admit in court that he had a hair fetish.

Furthermore, Benguit's sister outlined that another coincidence was that Restivo murdered people on the 12th day of a month - the same date of the month that Shin was murdered.

Benguit's brother collapsed on the day he was sentenced, feeling that Benguit was 'fed to the wolves'. He stated that Benguit was 'not capable of just randomly going behind a female and stabbing and just running away'.

Concerns
Benguit's conviction has raised a few concerns around multiple aspects of the case.

Facing pressure to solve the murder
Beguit became a suspect only when Shin's murder enquiry received a lot of attention. Within this, police had been criticised for not solving the murder. It is suspected that this may have been a 'serious problem', due to 'Bournemouth's economy dependent on language schools and general tourism'.

Furthermore, unlike Brown, who despite being a drug addict, was able to provide a clear account as to what happened, Benguit, himself a drug addict, was 'unable to challenge the police's hypothesis, which was based entirely on Beverley's statements', making him an easy target. It is considered that Brown's statements put emphasis on Benguit as the suspect, potentially meaning alternative lines of enquiry not being followed, through 'tunnel vision'.

Putting pressure on witnesses to provide evidence
As part of her 2018 and 2021 BBC documentary series 'Unsolved', journalist Munro spoke to a number of the witnesses who gave statements and/or evidence at court, some of whom were drug addicts. A number of witnesses felt that Dorset Police put pressure on them to provide statements - when Benguit was convicted of murder in 2005, the BBC reported that Dorset Police had said there was 'no motive, weapon or forensic evidence in the case, making it "impossible" to link the defendant to the murder'.

In one instance, it was discovered that two witnesses, who originally had told police the either knew nothing about Shin's murder or didn't want to be involved, suddenly provided statements when an unnamed, junior officer approached them. These witnesses later appeared at court, however, retracted their evidence.

During her 2018 BBC documentary, Munro wrote to the officer about these concerns, but he didn't reply.

In her 2021 documentary, Munro uncovered a statement of an officer who conducted all of Benguit's interviews. This officer had viewed CCTV from Charminster Road, that Munro had discovered, appearing to confirm an alibi for Benguit, at the time when the main prosecution witness, Brown, had told police he was at a crack house, cleaning himself up after murdering Shin. The footage looked similar to that of footage of Benguit the night before the murder, which the same officer had confirmed was Benguit. The man in the footage on Charminster Road wore the same hooded top and shoes as Benguit and was also bald. Despite this, Munro found that the officer wrote a statement about reviewing the CCTV, saying:"Further to my statements already made. During the course of the Shin Murder Enquiry I have conducted extensive interviews with Omar BENGUIT and am familiar with his appearance.

I have reviewed the CCTV tape item KPA/2 freom [sic] from the external cameras of the Bank Wine Bar, Charminster Road between 001 and 0500 hours on 12/07/2002 and video stills of persons seen thereon.

At 0252 hours a male wearing a hooded top whose appearance can not been [sic] seen walks into view from the direction of Cemetary [sic] Junction. At 0315 hours a male wearing a baseball cap alights from a vehicle and uses the Telephone Kiosk. Other than these two persons there are no sightings of any persons who resemble the appearance of Omar BENGUIT."In 2018, whilst not participating in the documentary, Dorset Police released a statement, through Detective Chief Superintendent Mark Callaghan, which said that their investigation into Shin's murder was 'through and very complex', with them thanking the diligence and professionalism of the officers involved, fully supporting them. They stated that the charging decision against Benguit the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). They added that Benguit was unanimously convicted by a jury at his 2005 trial and that the Court of Appeal had considered his case on two occasions, with evidence about an alternative suspect, Restivo, as well as the reliability of Brown being questioned. Dorset Police added that senior judges concluded that Benguit's conviction was not unsafe. They added that there were no allegations of police wrongdoing in the appeals.

After the 2021 documentary aired, Detective Chief Superintendent Ben Hargreaves, Head of Crime at Dorset Police said: "“Jong-Ok Shin, known as Oki, was a 26-year-old South Korean language student who was making her way home when she was brutally murdered in July 2002 in a sudden and unprovoked attack.

“Our investigation into Oki's murder was thorough, detailed and very complex. We submitted our evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service, which considered there to be sufficient evidence to charge Omar Benguit with Oki's murder and proceeded with the prosecution. Omar Benguit was unanimously convicted in January 2005 by a jury at Winchester Crown Court of the murder of Jong-Ok Shin. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

“Benguit appealed against his conviction, but this appeal was dismissed in July 2005 by judges at the Court of Appeal.

“The case was reviewed by the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) and referred to the Court of Appeal for a second time on the basis of the reliability of a prosecution witness and the suggestion of a possible alternative suspect. The appeal was dismissed in April 2014.

“This case has been through a series of reviews and any matter surrounding concerns regarding this conviction is ultimately a matter for the CCRC and the Court of Appeal. Dorset Police would follow the direction and instigate investigations if directed by the courts and responsible authorities.

“As always, our thoughts are with Oki's family and friends who remain devastated by their loss.”"

Natalie Stanton
Whilst drug-addict Stanton never gave evidence at Benguit's trial, she alleged she felt pressured into giving a false statement by police. Stanton alleged having been taken to a police station to be interviewed in relation to her knowledge of Benguit, an officer asked whether she had any drugs on her. Stanton did, with the officer taking them and putting them in a bin, with Stanton not being arrested for possessing them.

Stanton thought that as the police were helping her (in relation to not arresting her), she felt she had to help them in return. She stated that she was put under pressure by four officers in the interview, feeling as if they wanted her to say horrible things about Benguit's character. Despite this, Stanton told police that Benguit was 'fine', adding that she left her children alone with him. She felt as if the police used this, telling her that her children would potentially be taken off of her if she was to hang around with people like Benguit. This panicked Stanton, who explained that this was perhaps the reason she said untrue things about Benguit. Stanton's statement alleged that Benguit was 'arrogant' and had a 'problem communicating with woman', insinuating that Benguit was aggressive to woman. Within the statement, Stanton said that Benguit had 'raised his clenched fist' towards her, making her think he was going to hit her, but that he didn't. Stanton's statement also mentioned a set of kitchen knives being mentioned, however, Stanton later stated she didn't remember any knives going missing and felt as if the police had put those words into her mouth.

John Macleod
Macleod was one of drug-addicts who provide evidence at Benguit's first trial. In an unaired BBC interview, Macleod claimed that a few months after Shin's murder, he was arrested for an unrelated robbery on a jewellers. He alleged that officers visited him and despite telling them that Benguit had visited him, appearing fine and not mentioning about a murder, Macleod alleged that police didn't believe him. They allegedly stated that if he was to provide a statement about what he knew about Benguit, they could provide a letter to the judge at his robbery trial. Macleod provided a statement that said he had seen Benguit with blood on his shoes.

Six months after providing the statement, whilst Macleod was imprisoned for the robbery conviction at HM Prison Guys Marsh, police informed him that he would be required to attend Benguit's trial to give evidence. Macleod told them that he wouldn't be attending, telling police that he had told 'a pack of lies' within the statement. Macleod alleged that police told him that they didn't believe he had lied, telling him that they could help to organise a Home Detention Curfew (HDC), but that he must give evidence at court.

Leanne Mayers
Mayers, a heroin-addict and prostitute, provided a statement to police in 2003. Munro attempted to speak to her, however, discovered that Mayer's had been imprisoned for 12 years in 2014, for robbing a paraplegic man of his medication, with Mayers beating the man over the head with a kettle, as well as assaulting his carer.

In 2017, whilst in prison, a Munro visited her mother, showing her daughter's statement, which was seen for the first time by her mother. Her mother claimed that her daughter's statement wasn't entirely true, noting how Meyer had written about a visit to her mother when she had heard about the murder, which she stated didn't happen.

Meyer's statement outlined how she had seen Benguit with a knife, of approximately six inches, similar to the knife that was used to kill Shin. Meyer's mother stated that her daughter had told her how the police had kept questioning her as to whether she was sure she hadn't seen a knife of a particular description, to which Meyer replied with it not being an accurate description of what she saw. Meyer stated to her mother that the police kept 'on and on' regarding this, to which she felt they were trying to say the weapon Benguit had was the murder weapon. Meyer's mother stated how her daughter had been told by police words to the effect of 'what if it's one of your sister's next with Omar?', which her mother described as a lot of pressure for Meyer to conform with the police. Mayers claimed that officer told her to change her description of the knife, to match the description that had been suggested, through pathology, had been used to attack Shin. Her mother explained how there were good reasons for this, such as if her daughter was caught with something she could be let off with, due to cooperation with the police in regards to Shin's murder.

Meyer's mother stated that when Meyer spoke to her about the case, she didn't have good words to say about an officer involved, referring to him as a 'wanker', stating that he had taken her to 'score drugs', allowing her to use heroin in the toilets of the courtroom before and after giving evidence. Meyer's mother questioned how reliable her daughter's evidence could be.

Meyer's mother told Munro that she thought her daughter, as well as the people she mixed with, would be capable of doing what her daughter did, regarding lying in court. Meyer's mother stated that every time her daughter talked about the case, that she wouldn't be happy with the conviction if it was a member of her family, stating she would be 'so upset', appearing to reflect on how someone such as her daughter could 'put someone in prison'.

Munro was able to speak to Mayers through letters sent from prison. Mayer's stated: "I was young, dumb and easily manipulated. Omar would never have hurt anyone, he wasn't capable of murder. I didn't tell the truth in court". Mayer also confirmed that she'd stated the knife she saw Benguit with was the size of a penknife, not the description she gave in her statement. She claimed that police had encouraged her to alter the description she gave of the knife, to make it match with the description of the murder weapon. She also confirmed what her mother had told the BBC reporter about how police allowed her to buy heroin on 'several occasions', including on the way to court to give evidence at Benguit's trial.

In Summer 2020, Mayers was released on license from prison, having served the custodial half of her sentence, and Munro, as well as Benguit's sister, met with her. Mayers reiterated what her mother had told Munro, that the police had gotten her description of the knife to change. Mayers explained how she had falsely described the knife as being six-inches long; this made her the fifth prosecution witness who told Munro police had pressured them into lying at court. She stated the police officer's knew she was telling lies in the witness box, as they had got her to do so, with police allegedly writing out the statements of what they wanted Mayers to say. Crying, she stated: "I hate myself for it".

'Emma'
'Emma' (not her real name), testified at Benguit's final trial, along with her girlfriend. The prosecution used what Emma said, regarding a 'drug-fulled sexual encounter' between Emma, her partner and Benguit (who slept with him for drugs), where Benguit was 'quite horrible' to her partner to indicate Benguit's alleged behaviour under the influence of drugs and that Benguit was sexually aroused after smoking crack cocaine.

In 2017, when Emma was interviewed by the BBC, she appeared to believe that the rumour was that Benguit and others had attempted to rob Shin, had sex with her and killed her by stabbing her multiple times, believing Shin was 'stabbed in the back for £9.12 or something'. However, this was false to what Brown had alleged had happened, casting double as to the reliability of the memories of drug-addicts who acted as witnesses.

Joan Sheridan (June Sutton)
One of the most detailed accounts of the night of the murder was provided by the owner of the crack house on St Clement's Road, Sheridan (identified as the pseudonym June Sutton). Life was described as 'cheap' at the crackhouse, with Sutton's own daughter being sold drugs to by her mother, as well as prostituting herself to fund her drug habit.

Sutton had originally stated to police that Benguit had entered her address, covered in 'claret' (blood), looking for a change of clothes.

In 2017, Munro visited Sheridan, now living in Liverpool, in the early stages of dementia. Sheridan recounted her bad drug habit around the time of the murder, stating that her memory wouldn't have been good, but remembered about Benguit. She stated that what she had told police 'wasn't true', adding she knew nothing about the murder until police attended her address.

At court, Sheridan had recalled remembering the murder of Shin due to it being the opening of the sectarian marching season (Sheridan was a Roman Catholic). She stated she remembered Benguit being at the crackhouse during the early morning, where he looked for a change of clothes. Sheridan claimed that Benguit was 'bouncing around', due to drugs he had consumed. She told the court: "Although most of the time I was off my head, I had to keep my wits about me to a certain extent because I was dealing." She added how she had then kicked Benguit and Gbadamosi out of the crackouse.

Within her first statements, Sheridan had told police she didn't know anything about the murder, whereas the last of her three statements indicated that Benguit was in fact present at her house on the night of Shin's murder. Sheridan alleged that police said words to the effect that they knew Benguit was responsible for Shin's murder, appearing to guilt-trip her when they said words to the effect about Sheridan being a mother and for her to imagine how Shin's mother and father were feeling. Sheridan added that the police 'must have been selling' her and how they 'put half of the words' in her mouth. She couldn't remember Benguit being in the flat on the night.

Beverley McNeilly
McNeilly was friends with Benguit in 2002. McNeilly was well known to Dorset Police, having been a sex worker and drug addict, with a number of convictions. McNeilly had been an addict since she was 17-years-old, stating that she would complete sex work during the night and then shoplift during the day to fund her habit. She claimed that Benguit was never violent to women.

She stated that police leaned on her to provide a false statement about Benguit. She admitted that she had lied in court regarding a bag of clothes that were located in the River Stour, stating that police had told her the clothes had been worn by Benguit on the night he killed Shin, despite no forensics linking the clothing to him. McNeilly stated that police pressured her into saying that she'd provided the clothes to Benguit, alleging that police wanted her to say what they were telling her to say and that she was coerced into it, with her being ‘locked up’ if she had refused to do so and feeling that the next time she was in court, she'd have got a longer sentence.

McNeilly believed that the police were determined to convict Benguit and that her purpose on giving evidence at court was to get the case ‘all sewn up’, which was the words of the police. McNeilly stated that the police knew she was telling lies at court.

Jonathan Cutting
Cutting lived in the same address as Benguit at the time of Shin's murder. In court, he stated that when he left the address, he looked back to check the door was closed and on turning round, he stated that Benguit was standing in the window of the address, sharpening a knife, that he thought was approximately six-inches long. This was identical to the description of the knife in Mayer's false testimony.

Munro was able to speak to Cutting via video-call, where Cutting stated that the only thing that distinctly stuck in his mind was Benguit sitting in the bay window of the flat, sharpening a blade. However, Cutting stated that he didn't remember overtly looking (at court, Cutting had recalled he had only caught a 'fleeting glimpse') and wondered whether there was a chance that Benguit could have been doing something innocent, even with a knife, such as peeling a vegetable. However, Cutting stated that from his memory, it wasn't that.

Munro told Cutting that what struck her from examining witness testimony, was that alongside another account, Cutting was able to say that the blade of the knife was six-inches. Cutting stated he wouldn't have known what size the blade was, appearing to document his interpretation of proportions, when saying: 'If it's any bigger than a knife, then it's a big knife isn't it?' Cutting did think that it had been 'questioned' into his statement, for him to explain the knife having a blade of six-inches, thinking that police had likely asked him that specific question.

Cutting wasn't a drug addict, however, he stated that he felt Dorset Police had made up their mind about Benguit being guilty of murder. Cutting stated: "The police were essentially saying this guy's definitely murdered this student, he's murdered this poor, innocent girl on the other side of the world", telling him that he needed to speak to them if he knew anything about the case. Cutting stated that the police weren't looking to speak to him for 'impartial evidence', but to speak to him about Benguit, who they had for a murder, requiring police to 'tack the last little bits into this case to get this guy convicted for murder'. As of that time, Cutting became the 12th prosecution witness who thought Dorset Police had unfairly gathered evidence against Benguit.

Witnesses close to the scene at the time of the murder
Important testimony, casting doubt on the prosecution case, appeared to be missing from the testimony from two witnesses who were standing outside of The Brunswick Pub, 100 yards away, at the time of Shin's murder. They stated they heard a woman scream three times, followed by silence on the street until police and ambulance arrived approximately ten minutes later - something difficult to comprehend, given how quiet the street was of a normal night.

The statements also didn't mention the presence of Brown's car, which she stated she had driven and pulled in further down Malmsebury Park Road on the night of the murder, as well as any report of men getting out of a car, running up then back down the road. There was no mention of any shouting or the doors of car doors slamming, or that a car drove past them.

This completely undermines the account given by Brown of what she said happened that night.

Geographic profiler, Johnson, later stated that he couldn't think of a single case that matched the circumstances of three men jumping out of a car and launching an attack after attempting to chat up Shin. He stated that if there was such an interaction, it raised a question as to why Shin's wounds were in the back and not the front and that he would have expected some defensive injuries, that Shin didn't have.

Shin's dying declaration
Furthermore, Shin's account was recorded in statements by police and medical staff, where she told them she was attacked from behind, being stabbed in the back by a lone attacker, who was wearing a mask, who subsequently ran off.

It provides a strong suggestion that Benguit is not responsible for Shin's death, with the description appearing to have more strength against Restivo, with him previously having been placed under surveillance, stalking lone woman, and when searched, was found to have a ski mask and knife within his car, matching the type used to kill Shin. It places a similar weapon and piece of clothing identified in Shin's murder.

Criminology analysis of the case
In Autumn 2015, Director Marika Henneberg and one of the board of advisors, Barry Loveday from the Criminal Justice Clinic at the University of Portsmouth wrote an article for the British Journal of American Legal Studies, entitled 'Off Track'. Their article analysed three fatal stabbings in Sweden, California and the England, the latter being Shin's murder case. The piece focused on how police investigations could go 'off track', caused by internal and external pressures. These pressures increased a risk of 'vision' and 'case construction', where police focus on building a case around a particular suspect, likely ignoring or rejecting evidence that pointed to their existence.

Benguit and Brown as 'police property'
Within their article, British Criminologist Professor Robert Reiner's term regarding 'police property' was compared to how Benguit, as the main suspect and Brown, as the main prosecution witness, were 'used' by police. Reiner defined the term 'police property' as: "'Low status, powerless groups, whom the dominant majority see as problematic or distasteful. The majority are prepared to let the police deal with ‘their property’ and turn a blind eye to the manner in which this is done. Examples would be vagrants, skid row alcoholics, the unemployed or casually employed residuum'" Reiner had further stated that 'the prime function of the police has always been to control and segregate such groups and they are armed with a battery of permissive and discretionary laws for this purpose'.

With this in mind, Henneberg and Loveday argued that both Benguit and Brown could be seen as 'police property', in that the police used them for different purposes. It could be suggested that Brown being put into witness protection, then complaining about off duty visits by officers, which were then investigated, showed Dorset Police were using Brown in constructing a case. They argued that Benguit's conviction demonstrated that 'police property' could have a significant role during major investigations, where 'established police investigation procedures were leading nowhere'.

The lack of physical evidence and reliance on circumstantial evidence
Regarding the importance of physical evidence, Henneberg and Loveday quoted biochemist, criminalist and Manhattan Project participant, Paul Leland Kirk, who had said that: 'Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only its interoperation can err'.

Henneberg and Loveday discussed how it was remarkable that police could put a case together, strong enough to be accepted for prosecuting, not once, but on three occasions. They added that it was extraordinary that no physical evidence was located, when compared to witness testimonies, such as Brown's, that stated she had seen Benguit had been seen with Shin's blood on him. Evidence such as this could have been present on Benguit and the locations in which he was alleged to have visited, including Brown's car.

Henneberg and Loveday added that even the appeal court itself had admitted how: 'Searches and science did not link Benguit to the murder'. Their article continued, that it was 'ludicrous' as to testimonies about Benguit previously carrying a knife, proved he was responsible for murdering Shin, but understood that it was difficult for Benguit's defence to dispute Brown's account of the fact that Benguit carried, then used, a knife on the evening.

The absence of physical evidence contradicts the circumstantial evidence that Benguit was convicted of.

Television

 * The Jury Room - Episode 6 of a 2017 show presented by Will Hanrahan, broadcast on CBS Reality (later on Apple TV and ITV), where a jury, assembled by TV producers, re-examine murder cases where a killer has maintained their innocence

Books
 * Unsolved: The Man With No Alibi - a 6 episode 2018 documentary broadcast on BBC 3 by reporter Bronagh Munro, piecing together Benguit's case, through his family and witnesses who gave evidence in the case
 * Unsolved: An Alibi for Omar - a one episode 2021 documentary broadcast on BBC 3 by reporter Bronagh Munro, following up on newly discovered evidence on the previous series


 * Guilty Until Proven Innocent by Jon Robins (ISBN: 9781785903694) - Featuring a number of cases, including Benguit's, the book explores cases of injustice within the British legal system.