9-Minute News Report about Jens Söring's Refusal to Agree to DNA Testing

If you can follow his argument, you're smarter than me.

The local Lynchburg ABC television station has just published a long article and a news feature about the controversy over Jens Söring and DNA testing. You can watch the report here. There is a geographic restriction against Europe, so I took the liberty of uploading the video to my YouTube channel:

The quality is unfortunately low, but it’s still watchable. The accompanying news story is basically a transcript of the video. I’ll paste much of it here in case you’re not able to access the website from Europe:

The podcasters said the key would be new testing if they could convince Bedford County Commonwealth's Attorney Wes Nance to agree to it.

ABC13 asked Nance, "You are not in favor of having that evidence that’s in evidence here that hasn’t been tested, tested. Why not? "

"Because we can’t be sure we’re going to get valid results," Nance said.

Nance explained that the evidence was open to the public after the case closed. He said countless lawyers, reporters, and others have gone in and out of the evidence room with no record of who’s been there or what they touched, let alone their DNA profiles to compare.

That, Nance said, would just open a whole new set of theories, for a case that was already decided correctly back in 1990.

ABC13 asked Nance, "So the thing is, if Jens Soering’s DNA is among the DNA profiles that come out, wouldn’t that end all these questions?"

"Well there’s been an excuse for three separate confessions, there’s been an excuse as to why his co-defendant testified against him, there’s been an excuse for why a footprint similar in size to Jens Soering’s was left at the crime scene by the killer, don’t you think there’d be an excuse if we found Jens Soering’s DNA profile on the evidence as well?” Nance said.

Still, after months of research, and many discussions with Nance, the podcasters developed a petition for testing on a list of items that have never been tested, including biological evidence they believe would still be sealed.

Their petition began with an examination to first determine whether the evidence was too contaminated. "And only at that point with agreement from the Bedford County Commonwealth’s Attorney would any testing proceed," Stuart said.

Nance could have objected, but signed the petition “seen and not objected to.”…

ABC13 asked Nance, "He (Jens) has standing in the case. If he were to sign and submit it would you also not object?"

"I think I would be in a similar place," Nance said. "I’m not going to request it because I don’t think we’d get valid results. At the same time, I don’t want to be an obstructionist.”…

"So Jens was excited, said he would have his attorneys look at it, and then never really reached back out to us," Ryan said.

"And we kept checking back and checking back and months went by," Stuart said.

Then, according to a clip from their podcast, "Jens and his team insist he’s innocent, but won’t pursue testing to prove it.”

"Why am I being dragged into this? I have asked for testing and I’m asking for it now, ok go test it but I am not submitting a petition that is not legally required," Soering said.

Soering's team asked Nance for testing back in 2017 but Nance declined. Soering believes the podcasters have an agenda to confirm his guilt in order to boost their careers.

"The whole point of the podcasters' report is I'm not asking for testing because I have something to hide," Soering said. "I have nothing to hide. I've asked for testing."…

Soering admits there are ways around those issues, but readily agrees with Nance that the results would be useless….

ABC13 asked Nance, "So he’s asked you directly to test DNA. What do you make of that?"

"Well he knows that I am not confident about valid results and so that’s a good place to rehang your hat," Nance said….

Nance believes the jury convicted the killer in 1990, Jens Soering, but he’d test to confirm that if the evidence were clean.

"The commonwealth isn’t afraid of valid results. I have a feeling that Mr. Soering is," Nance said.

"To go out now and prove one more time that my DNA is not there... shrugs.. gets me nothing. Gets me nothing," Soering said.

So, let’s see if we can untangle this. Söring says he requested DNA testing in 2017. In fact, he didn’t request it personally, supporters did. Söring told supporters that there was no point in requesting DNA testing, because his case did not satisfy the prerequisites of Virginia’s DNA testing statute; specifically, he could not swear that the evidence wasn’t contaminated, and that it could prove his innocence. Strange how pessimistic he was about this before even getting a response from Nance!

Along come the Small Town, Big Crime podcasters, and they develop a protocol which would get around the problems Söring mentioned. Wes Nance, the Commonwealth’s Attorney (i.e., public prosecutor), agrees that the testing request seems legally sound, but that he himself doesn’t want to sign off because he’s afraid Söring will use any result to further muddy the issues in his case (which Söring is already doing anyway, but that’s another matter).

The key thing, though, is that Wes Nance won’t object if Söring requests the testing himself. This is more important than it first seems. Why? Because Söring argues (or used to argue) that if he signed a testing petition swearing that there was uncontaminated evidence which could prove his innocence, that would be committing the crime of perjury.

But wait, you may ask, who would be the person responsible for prosecuting Söring for perjury? The answer is…

Wes Nance!

And Nance has already gone on the record saying he has no problem with Söring requesting DNA testing. Söring seems to have realized the “I can’t sign it without committing perjury” argument has been blown out of the water, but — as Nance points out — Söring always has another argument, and another, and another.

Now, the argument seems to be “Meh, even if they find my DNA or someone else’s, it wouldn’t prove anything.” And the “podcasters” he denounces — who have names, by the way: Courteney Stuart and Rachel Ryan — only want testing so they can prove him guilty and make their careers.

I have many questions which Söring will never answer. First, when he says the “podcasters” only want to “confirm his guilt” to build their careers.

• Wouldn’t finding clear evidence of a possible alternate suspect do much more to build the podcasters’ careers than simply confirming Söring’s guilt?

• Also, isn’t Söring’s argument basically an admission that DNA testing could indeed confirm his guilt?

But wait, there’s more!

• If DNA testing would have been pointless all along, why does Söring insist he asked for it in 2017?

• If he couldn’t request it without committing perjury, then why did he request it in 2017?

In other words, does Söring want DNA testing or not?

It’s fascinating watching him pick an answer to this question depending on whom he’s talking to, how much he thinks they know about his case, and how likely they are to ask pointed follow-up questions.

As for his complaint about why he’s being “dragged into this?” the answer is simple: Because, unlike Elizabeth Haysom, he continues to publicly proclaim his innocence every chance he gets.

This is Reason #1 why DNA is such a huge stumbling block for Söring: He knows that the first thing someone hearing his innocence claims will think to themselves (and later ask him) is: If you weren’t there, then what do you have to lose from a DNA test? Shouldn’t you have been demanding it from the very beginning?

But there’s also Reason #2 the DNA issue is so threatening: DNA testing technology, and genetic genealogy techniques, are advancing by leaps and bounds. Every week brings a story of a decades-old murder case finally being resolved by modern, refined DNA testing and analysis techniques. Analysts are capable of looking at hopelessly contaminated, improperly-stored evidence from 30, 40, or even 60 years ago and getting results which would have been unavailable until just recently. And massive DNA databases now permit even partial profiles to be narrowed down by comparison with relatives’ DNA profiles already in databases. One American killer was caught when genetic genealogy revealed the suspect had 100% Italian roots (and even pinpointed his ancestors as coming from Gasperina, Italy) which allowed police to focus their search.

This is why Söring has devoted almost an entire hour on YouTube trying to explain why he won’t ask for DNA testing. But every new video just makes the issue murkier and murkier.

And its not going away. Every time Söring retails his story before a fresh, unsuspecting audience, little lightbulbs will appear over the audience members’ heads: “But wait, can’t DNA testing resolve this question once and for all?” Söring then has to start in with his confusing spiel: “I asked for it! But then to ask for it I would have to commit perjury! Yet I asked Wes Nance to do it! But it’s all irrelevant anyway because it wouldn’t prove anything! But I want it done!”

The more baroque his excuses get, the less convincing they are.