Klaus soering


  • 20/20 Haysom Murders: Jens Soering Gets Martin Sheen for 6th Book
  • Fabricated Innocence: The Self-Exoneration and Re-Incrimination of Jens Soering
  • Mortal Thoughts, part III: Continuing Lies
  • Soering: An Eventful Year in Review
  • Newsletter
  • 20/20 Haysom Murders: Jens Soering Gets Martin Sheen for 6th Book

    Truly, it is the gift that keeps on giving. Unlike parts I and II there is no specific theme here. This is more in the nature of a mopping up operation — simply highlighting what is effectively a collection of miscellaneous and sometimes random lies. All page references below are to Mortal Thoughts except where otherwise stated.

    First, Elizabeth Haysom murdered her parents alone; then she murdered them with an accomplice; now the claim is that she murdered them with two accomplices. The identities of these shadowy accomplices are never revealed, obviously. This last passage is interesting and goes a long way towards demonstrating how these claims were fabricated long after the event.

    Given his situation and location at that time, what possible basis would Soering have had for believing that he would be sent to a youth prison in Germany rather than being tried in Virginia? In reality none at all. Had that claim been even remotely close to the truth then the sensible thing would have been for him to fly to Germany straight away and remain there.

    Under no circumstances would Germany have agreed to return him to Virginia to face the possibility of execution. But instead he stayed in Virginia for more than six months, he and Haysom not fleeing actually to Paris, not Germany until 12 and 13 October respectively. In a desperate panic, he went first. As they say, go figure. His father was a German consular official in Detroit of somewhat uncertain status.

    Either way he would have been entirely familiar with the niceties of diplomatic immunity and well able to instantly disabuse his son of any prospect of such immunity.

    Full immunity is granted only to those diplomatic officers of high rank. Note the use of the singular in each case: just the one murderer. The problem is that not even his closest supporters believe that story, making it necessary to invent a better? So, uh, what exactly did happen to the mysterious accomplice or accomplices? Just for a moment there he was shifting his ground to the newly-revised script. Whose killings? How many times did Soering meet the Haysoms? It must be a sensitive matter for him, so he feels the need to lie about that, too — to elevate himself, so to speak.

    Did he believe her account? Haysom would eventually find an occasion for sexually fondling and touching her daughter.

    Soon these episodes progressed to outright molestation in which Elizabeth was forced to perform sexual acts. Or did he? The motive for this crime is sexual abuse. This is totally untrue. On 5 August he had been transferred to a prison hospital where he remained until early November under the special regime applied to suicide-risk prisoners. Disease of the mind? By any standards a very nasty-sounding diagnosis. Nope, not true. Nowhere in the judgment does it say that the Court expected or anticipated that he would be deported to Germany.

    In England he showed the resulting small scars to investigator Ricky Gardner. At his trial he tried to back out of his admission that the cuts occurred during the murders, claiming instead that they actually happened when he was a child.

    But in fact it was not suggested that the cuts were in the nature of thin lines that would typically be produced by a quick and simple slicing action. This is his own much later invention, made up to appear more consistent with his story. His hand was not merely sliced, as such. I had the impression that a small lump of flesh was cut out. That must have happened at the time that I tried to take the knife away [from Mrs Haysom]. Howard, the surgeon from Houston, called a well-known defense lawyer in Charlottesville, John Lowe.

    He, in turn, called Sheriff Wells and told him his investigators were not to question any members of the Haysom family without him being there. Or from the Haysoms. So the precise bullying quotient there amounted to none at all. Absolutely not true. It has already been noted here in the post covering the decision of the U. Court of Appeals that Soering had every right to legal advice and the right to remain silent. Of his own volition he chose to waive those rights.

    In addition to being untrue, it is also completely at variance with his stated intention, is it not? The reason is that the story about agreeing to confess and take the blame for Elizabeth was an after-the-event attempt to explain and justify his actions. There never was any such agreement; the claim was a complete fabrication.

    In reality he was very fearful of what the police already knew and in those circumstances elected to give them, piece by piece, a version which acknowledged the killings themselves while also denying any element of premeditation. It probably seemed to him the most prudent course to take at that time, even though much later he came to regret it bitterly and furiously, of course. If that were true, why not just sit and wait it out?

    In such circumstances he would have had a distinct advantage. He must have been in a rush at that point. Perhaps he had an urgent appointment to keep elsewhere. Soering asked to speak to Detective Ricky Gardner. He asked Gardner not to tape-record the interview, and he agreed.

    Immediately afterwards Gardner then dictated notes into a hand-held recorder. Read Miranda warnings to Soering at that time. Said he understood and signed form. He was fully informed of his rights, and he waived them. That was his choice. Except for the first two sessions at and p.

    He signed the forms on several occasions and waived his rights. There was no coercion, physical or otherwise. The English Detective Sergeant Kenneth Beever had come to my holding cell alone and told me that Liz might fall down and hurt herself if I did not drop my demand for a lawyer.

    Well, he has lurid claims about everyone involved, that for sure. But the allegation about DS Beever is from every angle as ludicrous as it is pernicious, and there is not a scrap or hint of any evidence to justify it. This is desperate stuff. When in police custody suspects are documented, monitored and supervised by an entire custody team.

    Haysom, for her part, has never claimed otherwise. Probably most people do when the charges are quite so serious. And when Gardner turned up later, in response to the transatlantic summons, he once again demonstrated an exemplary level of fairness that would stand comparison with that of any police officer.

    He was there to investigate a double murder, a task he obviously undertook with all befitting seriousness, but also with absolute propriety. That is what makes the present campaign of vilification directed very personally at him by Sheriff Harding and others quite so utterly grotesque.

    There have been, and are, police officers who richly deserve public opprobrium for their conduct, but Gardner has certainly never been one of them. In reality, from his perspective, Soering made extremely foolish errors that would alarm even a half-wit lawyer; but they were entirely his own and he has spent the years since then trying to blame everyone else for them, lashing out in every direction, smearing, maligning and traducing everyone within his purview.

    In so doing he alternates between the gutter and the sewer, which has become his elective modus operandi. So flustered did he become that he asked for a short recess in court, to allow him to digest the startling news.

    He realised immediately that a busy night lay ahead of Elizabeth and him, since they would have to correct large portions of her upcoming testimony.

    The law does not equivocate. There is right and wrong. Legal and illegal. Guilty and innocent. He is alleging that Updike, as prosecutor, entered into nothing less than a criminal conspiracy with Elizabeth Haysom to pervert the course of justice.

    Even leaving aside the important underlying principle involved, it was, paradoxically, his own rigidity of thought that most thoroughly militates against such an absurd conclusion. As usual, Soering has not a speck of evidence, such that this bizarre allegation can be safely consigned to the trash with all the others. Yes, and even some members of his family were also sufficiently well informed to accept the unpalatable truth; they were never duped by such a calculating litany of largely unfounded allegations and self-serving lies.

    Betrayed, I tell you, betrayed!

    Fabricated Innocence: The Self-Exoneration and Re-Incrimination of Jens Soering

    They were found in their family home — Derek in a doorway and Nancy in the bedroom — were they had been slashed and stabbed to the point of almost decapitation. At first their murder was a mystery as the couple were well regarded in the local area and well respected by many people in the neighbourhood; it seemed completely out of character for the couple to be so brutally murdered.

    Their flee and the lack of damage to the house lead to suspicion surrounding their daughter Elizabeth being the main perpetrator. Elizabeth had had a rough childhood and a rocky relationship with her parents.

    To Jens and then later in court she admitted to her mother sexually mistreating her and forcing their own wishes on her career path. Elizabeth travelled to Europe and went on a binge of sex and drugs until she ran out of money and was forced to return to her parents. Her parents were dismissive over her lifestyle and attempted to get Elizabeth to give up the drugs which only infuriated Elizabeth further. She kept a diary where she detailed how much she despised her parents and her desire to get rid of them.

    Jens quickly fell for Elizabeth becoming completely and utterly in love with her. Elizabeth often told Jens through letters that she hated her parents, Jens agreed along with Elizabeth which led to many how followed the case to believe that Jens hated her parents and believe they were stopping Elizabeth from being with him.

    He moved around lot as a child meaning as he often was torn away from friendships. As he grew older he became less sociable and introverted. He moved to the US in and met Elizabeth when he went to university. C for a mini-holiday. According to Jens, Elizabeth told him that she anted to give up drugs but had an outstanding payment she needed to make to her dealer. To cover up her interaction with the dealer Elizabeth asked Jens to buy two cinema tickets and go to see the film whilst Elizabeth met the dealer so that he would know what happened in the film so if her parents asked what they did they could recall the details of the film.

    Elizabeth returned to their hotel room in the early morning and told Jens she had murdered her parents and she needed him to be her alibi. In a later interview, Jens explains how he suspected that their trip to Washington D. As the couples trial began, the mutual affection vanished as Jens tried to contact Elizabeth but she cut him off.

    Elizabeth pleaded guilty and then testified against him. His rewritten statement was compiled of more precise details about the films shown in the cinema which shifted the attention back to Elizabeth. The most confusing aspect of the case is the involvement of evidence. Four blood types were found at the crime scene. Returning to a previous point I brought up that Elizabeth often talked about how much she hated her parents and once expressed her desire to get rid of them.

    Although the evidence at the crime scene point to Elizabeth as the main culprit, Jens was given a double life sentence for first degree murder and Elizabeth was given 90 years for her association with the murder.

    The Virginian and Bedford county communties seemed to be in favour of sympathy towards Elizabeth considering the highly regarded nature of their family.

    Jens was easier to blame as he had confessed to the murder and was a complete outsider to the community. This is a popular belief as Jens was involuntarily extradited to the US in He has also been eligible for parole since but has been denied it a dozen times. Earlier this year a 19 page report was conducted by Albemarle County Sheriff J. Elizabeth is due to be released in at age Do you think Jens is innocent?

    I promised them a follow-up article addressing every single point made by both letters. In the meantime, I arranged to get a hold of the Wright Report English version hereunofficial German version here. That piece was published g on January 22,and it was accompanied by a link to the full Wright report.

    It took me almost 20, words, but I set out all of the major findings of the Wright report and refuted all of of the claims in the two letters to the editor.

    Mortal Thoughts, part III: Continuing Lies

    I cited the Wright report something like 60 times. They also laid down a firm rule: Nobody was to engage with me for any reason. Presumably, they thought that if everyone ignored me, I would give up and move on to other subjects.

    One of the reporters for the Spiegel had reached out to me before the interview.

    Soering: An Eventful Year in Review

    Lanz revealed basic ignorance of the facts of the case, and asked only softball questions. I continued intermittently posting snippets from this rich haul, including a 2-part series on the full report by British confessions expert Dr. Andy Griffiths, which turned out to be so deeply flawed as to be basically meaningless. There never was anything to his innocence claims in the first place. The identities of these shadowy accomplices are never revealed, obviously. This last passage is interesting and goes a long way towards demonstrating how these claims were fabricated long after the event.

    Given his situation and location at that time, what possible basis would Soering have had for believing that he would be sent to a youth prison in Germany rather than being tried in Virginia?

    In reality none at all. Had that claim been even remotely close to the truth then the sensible thing would have been for him to fly to Germany straight away and remain there. Under no circumstances would Germany have agreed to return him to Virginia to face the possibility of execution.

    But instead he stayed in Virginia for more than six months, he and Haysom not fleeing actually to Paris, not Germany until 12 and 13 October respectively. In a desperate panic, he went first. As they say, go figure. His father was a German consular official in Detroit of somewhat uncertain status. Either way he would have been entirely familiar with the niceties of diplomatic immunity and well able to instantly disabuse his son of any prospect of such immunity.

    Newsletter

    Full immunity is granted only to those diplomatic officers of high rank. Note the use of the singular in each case: just the one murderer. The problem is that not even his closest supporters believe that story, making it necessary to invent a better? So, uh, what exactly did happen to the mysterious accomplice or accomplices? Just for a moment there he was shifting his ground to the newly-revised script. Whose killings? How many times did Soering meet the Haysoms? It must be a sensitive matter for him, so he feels the need to lie about that, too — to elevate himself, so to speak.

    Did he believe her account? Haysom would eventually find an occasion for sexually fondling and touching her daughter. Soon these episodes progressed to outright molestation in which Elizabeth was forced to perform sexual acts.

    Or did he? The motive for this crime is sexual abuse. This is totally untrue. On 5 August he had been transferred to a prison hospital where he remained until early November under the special regime applied to suicide-risk prisoners.

    Disease of the mind? By any standards a very nasty-sounding diagnosis. Nope, not true. Nowhere in the judgment does it say that the Court expected or anticipated that he would be deported to Germany. In England he showed the resulting small scars to investigator Ricky Gardner. At his trial he tried to back out of his admission that the cuts occurred during the murders, claiming instead that they actually happened when he was a child.

    But in fact it was not suggested that the cuts were in the nature of thin lines that would typically be produced by a quick and simple slicing action. This is his own much later invention, made up to appear more consistent with his story. His hand was not merely sliced, as such.

    I had the impression that a small lump of flesh was cut out. That must have happened at the time that I tried to take the knife away [from Mrs Haysom]. Howard, the surgeon from Houston, called a well-known defense lawyer in Charlottesville, John Lowe. He, in turn, called Sheriff Wells and told him his investigators were not to question any members of the Haysom family without him being there. Or from the Haysoms. So the precise bullying quotient there amounted to none at all.

    Absolutely not true. It has already been noted here in the post covering the decision of the U. Court of Appeals that Soering had every right to legal advice and the right to remain silent. Of his own volition he chose to waive those rights.

    In addition to being untrue, it is also completely at variance with his stated intention, is it not?


    thoughts on “Klaus soering

    • 03.09.2021 at 04:20
      Permalink

      Unequivocally, excellent answer

      Reply
    • 05.09.2021 at 00:37
      Permalink

      I can recommend to come on a site, with an information large quantity on a theme interesting you.

      Reply
    • 08.09.2021 at 20:46
      Permalink

      I recommend to you to come for a site on which there are many articles on this question.

      Reply
    • 09.09.2021 at 05:41
      Permalink

      Sounds it is quite tempting

      Reply

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *