Amanda Knox and Christopher Robinson Put Truth First

The response from Söring is telling. Also, I provide a few minor clarifications.

View of the Baptistery of St. John the Baptist, Neu-Ulm

How it Came About

(The clarifications are probably of interest mainly to case fans, so I’ve put them below.)

A few months ago, Amanda Knox contacted me and asked me for some information about the Söring case and my views on it. For background, Amanda Knox was the American exchange student convicted of the murder of English exchange student Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, in 2007. After a long odyssey within the Italian court system, her case ended with her full exoneration by the Italian Supreme court in 2015. Knox returned to the U.S., married poet and novelist Christopher Robinson, and started a number of media projects, including a podcast called Labyrinths.

Of course, I was aware that Knox and Robinson had done a 9-part series on Söring’s case in 2019 and a friendly follow-up interview with Söring in Germany. Söring sometimes uses proxies to gather information about his critics, so I was slightly wary. Nevertheless, I decided to respond and answer whatever questions they had. I try to be as open as possible about my activities. Knox and her husband Christopher Robinson seemed to be genuinely interested in getting another perspective on the case, and I gave them one. The result was this interview:

This interview is an act of remarkable bravery and good faith. Knox and Robinson acknowledge that they had become friends with Söring and given him a platform to accuse numerous people of wrongdoing. Yet after reading the Wright Report and communicating with me, they had come to doubt many of Söring’s claims.

To me, one of the most telling parts of this interview comes just after I discuss Andrew Griffiths’ report on Söring’s confessions. I disclosed the entire report to the world for the first time in 2020, and wrote two long blog posts analyzing it. I had reached out to Griffiths publicly and privately, letting him know I was planning to address his report, and inviting any comments or corrections. Griffiths completely ignored me. I told Knox and Robinson this was standard practice within Team Söring: Söring tells journalists and supporters to ignore me. Here, Robinson interjects: “This is in fact exactly what Jens told us. He said that Andrew Hammel was just like the guilters who profess that Amanda is guilty. He is a crazy obsessive hell-bent on ruining Jens’ life.” Of course I’m not trying to ruin his life, I’m trying to establish the truth. But to someone who has made a lie the centerpiece of his life, that distinction doesn’t exist.

The last part of the interview is moving. Knox and Robinson report they found themselves in a painful situation: They considered Söring a friend and had helped him broadcast his innocence claims (and his attacks on Elizabeth Haysom) in good faith. Yet now they had doubts. They contacted Söring to ask him what he made of the critiques of skeptics. Having corresponded with Knox and Robinson, I am certain they framed their questions in a thoroughly polite and respectful manner. They’re extremely well-mannered folks.

They describe Söring’s hostile and wounding response at the end of the podcast. Söring even accused Knox of being a pot calling the kettle black, since, he claimed, there was more evidence she was a killer than that he was (nonsense, of course). It’s hard to imagine hearing that from someone you considered a friend. As you’ll see in my upcoming book, Söring has a lifelong habit of demeaning people he dislikes (and sometimes ones he does) with cutting insults and snide insinuations. That goes double for anyone who questions his story.

Throughout my communications with Knox and Robinson, I provided them with all the sources which informed my arguments and encouraged them to seek out independent authorities to check my work and test my arguments. I work hard to get things right, but I’m always worried I might have overlooked something. Knox and Robinson did just that:

We reached out to friends in the innocence movement, DNA and false-confessions experts to get their opinions. We sought opinions from law enforcement and DNA specialists among our own patrons. And all these sources confirmed the skepticism we felt about Jens’ innocence claims. We also felt that we owed it to Jens to be honest with him. We reached out with that very difficult news, effectively shattering our relationship with him. But we also felt that we owed it to all of you listening out there, to Elizabeth, to the detectives and investigators in this case, and to Derek and Nancy Haysom. We may never know definitively if Jens killed the Haysoms, but we think there’s a lot of compelling evidence for his guilt after all, and very little in the way of exonerating evidence. We also think that after three decades in prison, Jens has done his time, and is no longer a danger to society. And we hope that Jens can someday understand our commitment to the evidence. to the truth, and our refusal to accept comfortable, easy answers.

I was impressed by Knox and Robinson’s bracing honesty. During all of my writing about this case, this is all I wanted to achieve: for journalists to maintain a critical distance and verify that what Söring was telling them was true. Knox and Robinson have modelled how to deal with a situation like this. This podcast should be taught in journalism schools, and not because of anything I said in it.

Clarifications

Now for a few corrections. This interview was unscripted on my part, and I was probably quaffing beers during it, so there were inevitably a few errors and sloppy formulations. Further, the interview was edited, of course, which meant that some explanations and caveats were omitted.

1. When I said documentary filmmakers always “lie” to you, that was intended as a humorous exaggeration. What I meant to convey was that journalists will usually try to cultivate a sympathetic relationship to sources, and that often means not revealing to the source that they may be portrayed critically in the finished product. This is one of the moral compromises integral to journalism. As Janet Malcolm famously wrote: “Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.” As far as I’m aware, none of the documentary filmmakers I’ve worked with have lied to me, in fact they’ve all been quite forthright.

2. I said that Söring had “sued” Eva Beck and Dr. Alice Brauner. I was using the word “sued” as a shorthand to cover a bunch of nice distinctions which I though might have simply bored or confused the listener. In fact, he did not sue them, but he did file complaints with Eva Beck’s employer and with a German public radio station after the station broadcast an interview with Brauner about the podcast project. Further, Söring’s former lawyer only threatened me with a lawsuit using the legal procedure called Abmahnung, but did not actually follow through and file suit.

3. When I said Söring has never requested DNA testing on his own, what I meant was he never took the initiative to go through the proper formal channels to request DNA testing. After the issue became a topic within Team Söring in 2017 and 2018, Söring in fact sent pro forma messages to the Bedford County District Attorney requesting DNA testing. The process of formally applying for testing requires much more than an email, so Söring knew these emails had no legal validity. Privately, Söring discouraged supporters from pushing for testing, arguing that (1) the existing DNA results from 2009 were basically good enough; and (2) he could not fulfill the legal requirements for testing.

4. When I talked about Söring’s lawyer in 2009 discouraging Söring from taking action based on those tests, I was referring to high-profile moves such as (1) filing a new habeas corpus appeal or (2) holding a press conference. His lawyer essentially advised him the DNA results were not important enough to justify either step. After 2009, Söring did in fact claim — most prominently in his 2012 German-language book Not Guilty! — that the DNA tests excluded him and suggested there was one unknown male who left DNA at the crime scene. In any case, this whole topic has been overtaken by events, since all Söring has to do right now to obtain DNA testing with cutting-edge technology is sign an existing motion which is all ready to go and which the sitting District Attorney has promised not to oppose. Everything is ready and waiting for Söring’s signature. Which, as I have previously argued, he will never provide.

If anyone spots another mistake, just let me know below.