A German Judge is Going to Pronounce Söring Innocent!
Big news from the Jens Söring media offensive!
Recently a few people have gotten in touch with me to tell me of one of Jens Söring’s ongoing projects: He plans to create a podcast in which a sitting German judge reviews his case and, at the end, pronounces him innocent! And it’s not just a pipe dream, there is apparently a German judge out there who has actually agreed to participate in this spectacle.
Söring is currently looking for “media partners” to accompany the podcast, something I’m familiar with from working on the Das System Söring podcast. In other words, he’s looking for media firms or publishing houses which will team up to finance the podcast and provide it with a bigger public platform. So far, there’s apparently been limited interest.
As of yet, I still know nothing about the format of the podcast, although I could imagine that Burkhard Benecken, the criminal-defense lawyer who plans to pronounce Söring innocent in his upcoming book, may play a role. I can envision Söring renting a courtroom, then appearing with Benecken as his defense attorney, someone else as the “prosecutor”, and whichever judge can be guaranteed to find Söring innocent acting as the “neutral judge”. Nevertheless, this is all speculation at this point.
Is it legal for a sitting German judge to participate in this kind of spectacle? That’s a good question. Judges have a right to free speech under Article 5 of the Grundgesetz just like anyone else, so if the judge participated solely on his or her own private time, they would probably enjoy protection. However, judges are also bound by ethical principles. German judges aren’t actually bound by a formal code of ethics (interestingly enough), but are required to observe “principles” such as transparency and objectivity. A helpful English-language brochure describes these principles in more detail:
Trust in the judiciary requires that judges and public prosecutors must be trustworthy. This, in turn, is based principally on the fundamentals of honesty and sincerity, dependability and discretion…
They refrain from behaving or expressing themselves in such a way as to damage that trust and the respect owed to the judiciary. They endeavour to promote trust in their commitment to justice through moderation, objectivity and emotional restraint…
They are mindful of the impression they make in the way they conduct themselves personally, socially and politically. They do not use their professional position for personal benefit and endeavour to avoid any impression of abusing their office…
So, would participating in a media spectacle created by a double-murderer and con man in which the “judge” has already promised to render a “not guilty” verdict violate these principles? I suppose we’ll have to wait and see what the podcast is like (assuming it ever gets made). Yet if the descriptions I’m hearing are accurate, it looks like whatever judge participates in this spectacle will have to handle dozens, if not hundreds of complaints.
Needless to say, if you’ve got any more information about this project, please feel free to let me know, and I’ll of course treat the matter as confidential if you request. You can read me on Twitter, where my DMs are open, or using this contact form, or at habeasboy && gmail && com, where the &&s are replaced by what needs to go there.
And here a note to Söring: In your conversations with media people, you continue to bring up my name proactively and dismiss me as a “crazy”/”obsessed” “Texas blogger” (“Do not speak to him”!). Now I’m not the kind of guy to file lawsuits based on criticism — that’s more your style — but I do have my limits. And, as Talleyrand may once have said, attacking me this way is worse than a crime, it’s a mistake: Thousands of people have had the experience of reading what I’ve written about your case or listening to what I’ve said, and as far as I can tell, none of them has come away regarding me as a nutcase. Your pre-emptive attacks thus always backfire, making you look defensive and frightened.
So allmählich wird der "Fall Söring" doch langweilig.
Er wurde verurteilt, und nicht zuletzt in dem Podcast "Das System Söring" wurde das Geschehen gründlich aufgearbeitet, er wurde nach 32 Jahren Haft entlassen - nicht wegen Zweifeln an seiner Schuld, nicht wegen erwiesener Unschuld, sondern weil er nicht mehr als gefährlich angesehen wurde; wie auch zeitgleich seine Mittäterin. Beide sind weiterhin als Schuldige verurteilt. Punkt.
Frau Haysom hat auch niemals etwas anderes behauptet, soweit ich Äußerungen von ihr gelesen habe.
Es wird nicht leicht für ihn, hier in Deutschland eine dauerhafte finanzielle Basis zu finden.
Ob ein solches nachgespieltes Gerichts-"Spektakel" serös wirken würde - das kann ich mir kaum vorstellen. Aber auch nicht, dass es besonders viele Menschen interessieren würde.
Ob sich ein Richter dazu hergeben würde? Das will ich mir nicht vorstellen.
Ansonsten: Papier, Zelluloid und digitale Medien sind sehr, sehr geduldig und sehr, sehr vielfältig ...
I sometimes wonder what kind of damage to society he would possibly have caused if he hadn’t been in prison for so long. If he had been released earlier or been prosecuted in Germany under the German law he would have been released after 10 years or so. He could have finished a university degree etc. My feeling is that he would always have tried to become some sort of public figure, a politician perhaps or someone who has this sense of self importance and who enjoys the limelight and useful connections and networks. Imagine, if he had been given this opportunity earlier, he would likely have committed a different crime (more white collar type) but maybe would have gotten away with it in different ways. He is a chameleon when it comes to fitting in when required but has a very low threshold of breaking rules when it benefits him, perfect for a career in corruption, tax fraud, insurance fraud or money laundering. But with his sense of entitlement, he would not even think he made a mistake or broke the law, because he can rely on friends in high places who would always bail him out. I am more and more convinced that even if he hadn’t killed these people, he would have somehow ended up as a career criminal or corrupt politician. He has been given a second chance and on the outside he plays the charming, smiling and innocent looking nerd who could not hurt a fly, but I think he really thinks it’s now payback time and society owes him something and this will eventually put him on a path to escalation and self destruction.