As the admin for the original and extant Perugia Murder File twitter account (@PerugiaMurderFi) which supports Amanda Knox's obvious innocence I was appalled by her support for a man obviously guilty of murdering two helpless senior citizens.
Hearing that she's published an interview with Hammel enables me to regain some of the respect for her previously lost.
Knox‘s original podcast episodes about Söring in “The Truth about True Crime” are so cringeworthy that you may need to have your toes surgically uncurled after listening to all of them (“Let’s all go to Germany when Jens gets out! Yay!!”). I didn’t watch the footage of Söring‘s arrival in Germany, but as far as I know, neither Knox nor Flom, Grisham or Sheen were lined up at the airport.
Regarding Martin Sheen, I found his interview in “The Truth about True Crime” somewhat enlightening. Apparently he is a good Christian man who had smoke blown up his you-know-what by someone whom he perceived to be a devout Catholic as well.
Mein Kommentar unter dem vorherigen Podcast-Blogeintrag passt hier immer noch.
Deshalb für mehr Vielfalt in Englisch:
"Clever connect to Knox that she was innocent. I'm sure that was conducive to making this podcast happen. Two sentences doesn't explain it, especially when one sentence quotes the verdict. It also sounded a bit different on Terrys/Nigel's site, back in the days of her first podcast series with Söring.
Please write about her case and justify your opinion.
Then I am fascinated how uncritically they question your monologue. Certainly, within an hour it is impossible to hold the facts/ambiguities in the case against each other. To monocausally string together interpretations, of course, is enough for that.
So background facts:
1. confessions
You leave out a crucial fact in your enumeration. In the last confession, Elizabeth Haysom appears at the crime scene, which also fits the end of the love affair between the two.
You leave out all the contradictions that clearly show that Söring is telling about things that he did not experience in part because no evidence or logical explanations can be found. We are not talking about two or three details here, but rather about at least 15-20 (painting, food, set of dishes, table, shoe marks, blood in the car, trash can ride, blood in the shower, missing blood on Derek's chair just to touch on a few topics). To explain this with alcoholized is not plausible and is not enough.
2. the letter with the tax return of Derek Haysom, which Elizabeth was supposed to write with her father on the day of the crime, and was postmarked in DC on Monday following the weekend of the crime, remains unmentioned! You don't have an explanation for this, as the investigators didn't get anywhere either. No fingerprints of the two (on this letter) that were expected to the weekend from the Haysoms. It is an inconvenient piece of evidence that also fell under the table in both trials. It is inconceivable that lone perpetrator Söring would start looking for this letter at the Haysoms to take back to DC. For Richard and Howard Haysom and Massie at times obviously the ultimate evidence that Elizabeth was not in DC. A DNA test from the glue area (saliva) is more than interesting!
3. expert opinion
It should be mentioned that Dr.Hamilton is Dr.Bullard's husband. This made it even easier to commission an expert opinion in the direction of Manslaughter.
4. DNA
No word on the fact that Gist said in the courtroom in 1990, no more blood available for DNA testing. That is a trial fact! No word on the fact that Söring was to be deported in 2010/11. I wonder why. Yes of course also because of the DNA results from 2009. Why then drum up the press extra loudly. That Derek Haysom's DNA was not requested by the DFS as reference DNA in 2009 is a total absurdity. After the direct cancellation of deportation, Söring fell into a deep hole. This should be understandable even for Söring critics!
5. alibi
I find it a bit naive to assume that Haysom stayed in DC because she says so and Jens says so in London in 1986. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence (letters) that he was deliberately keeping her away from the scene of the crime because he was just providing probation for her!!! Her defiant "I did it myself" doesn't sound like a joke to me, but rather like a "you probably don't trust me to do it". What they experienced together which should be too horrible for a continuation of the relationship doesn't fit with her partying in a bar in DC while he mutilates Derek Haysom's face! Also, he wrote "would piss me off" if he had read in a letter if she had completely taken the blame as a single perpetrator.
The key indication that both were in LC is the missing movie ticket to the last show, among all other implausible statements. There was enough money (jewelry sale!).
6. deal
So just because Updike says there was no deal, there was no deal. Wow. (He was the guy arguing positively on her in the direction of the parole board at her first hearing!) However, there was an early parole for Elizabeth 8 years after her sentence. That led to pressure from the family to have Judge Sweeney still write to the parole board (after her sentence) to tell them not to release her too soon. Corresponding reactions of the family then also to her first parole hearing!
She justified her decision not to fight through her deportation any further by saying that she did not want to rot in prison! Neaton gets even in the cross-examination with Haysom suitable answers. Rosenfield confirms it.
I've been in contact with Haysom myself. She is nice and open minded and she doesn't want to talk about the past. Her wording was "my horrible crime" without fingerpointing at Söring which fits self reflection and remorse. She is undoubtedly a better person. But should the thesis that she was at the scene of the crime be true, there is certainly no reason for her to go to the press, but much more for leaving the press behind. Same of course for DNA retesting!!!
You have to look at the invoice. The credit card of Klaus Soering was charged when check out. But before Yale Feldman testified that probably between 05.30 and before 11 pm a charge information about 33USD was received at the reception on the 30th of March in 85! Nothing else. The forged signed roomservice with direct payment via this credit card by Haysom coming out of the shower is one of her great fairy tales. It is too friendly and untypical for any investigator like Terry W. to simply adopt this version without any proof!
Neaton had to fall on his sword at trial when they were suddenly found and say he'd had the receipts all along but had forgotten about them.
Soring assumed the police had the lift and lobby CCTV footage and therefore corroborated it by confessing at Richmond police station that Elizabeth brought down a coat for him to wear as he had no pants.
Can we make a check for the fact that there was no evidence that Haysom had stayed in DC to create a "proper" alibi (party, consuming drugs, missing 2 tickets for the third show). The two didn't mention any existence of a second ticket for the last show. Only stupid excuses why it was missing.
Now you are coming with the next story out of the Wright report. Wright's strong belief (he speculates but doesn't know) that Soering (who could have also keep quiet) confessed cause Soering believed that the police have strong evidence against him. So Wright is pointing to Jens statement of being recorded in the elevator being naked beyond a coat.
Funfact. The cam in the elevator had never been recorded. Just monitored. So the video did never exist. Next funfact. If you are a structured killer full of plans and you know that you will have to use the monitored elevator after coming back from the crime scene. What do you want to know about this camera? Why is Soering writing to Elizabeth that the American cops don't have any serious against them to calm her down, while Gardner was in London?
Even more plausible is, that Soering still saw the need to protect Elizabeth in front of 3 investigators with a single killer version!
There has never been any suggestion that a third party was involved. If they were both at LC, who made the telephone call to the University and wrote down two numbers on a piece of paper in the room. It was Elizabeth trying to remember her pin number and trying to contact a friend to retrieve the pin from her room. She ended up having to use Klaus Soering's credit card.
The door light on or off is absolutely irrelevant in the direction who killed the Haysoms. The light was on and Soering told a story of coming back to the house in order to turn it off. And Updike made a theory out of it. If you are the killer who see the need to switch it to off you can go through the house and try every switch or use the fuse switch, or destroy the bulb. The Haysom bodies had been found cause Elizabeth had called the Massies because she would need money for her dorm fee and not why the light was burning. I'm sure they needed the light to have a better look for the door/trunk of the car but they forgot the knob of the screendoor.
The worst sentence possible for Elizabeth without a plea deal could have been the death sentence (and Richard and Howard made their demand for the strongest punishment that is possible at the trial, so an early parole was quite ridiculous for them!!!) but the main thing is, that Elizabeth first got known to her punishment as she was talking to Sweeney and not as she left London after talking to Updike! Her demand for leaving London, ending her fight for extradition was also that Soering will get the same punishment (logical for two killers). Her hope was to get an early parole with the help of Updike. So the deal was more with him (being his keywitness) than with the court!
To be more serious, if you are planning a double murder, would you take the risk to drive two times to a dumpster and someone could recognize your rental car?
1.Accessory before the fact is not a capital offence and she was never charged with murder because there was no evidence she committed the murders. In fact the killer explicitily said she didn't.
2.No need to go to all that trouble trying every light switch, tripping the fuse and busting the bulb. Elizabeth lived there and knew the switch was in the master bedroom and would have turned it off had she been there.
3. The letter was presumably posted to buy time and delay suspicion. For the same reason Soering unsuccessfully tried to turn off the porch light.
Unsurprisingly he didn't want to fly a kite.
But if they weren't trying to buy time, why not just leave the door open with all the lights on for any passer by?
"An accessory to murder is charged based on the degree of the murder. However, a person may face similar charges to the principal offender if they were an accessory before the fact. They can receive a life sentence in prison or a death sentence for first-degree murder🤷" and the indictment was initiated on capital murder.
I don't get your argument.
"Elizabeth lived there and knew the switch was in the master bedroom and would have turned it off had she been there."
But why???
They could have forgotten it. They could have decided to let it on cause it was on as they arrived and also the courtains had all been down. So why that? Why the Voodooism? The question on or off was irrelevant for them. You should rest with the knowledge that there happened some incidents at the crime scene which can not be explained without their thoughts at the event. But what also fits perfectly to her presence in the house was the condition of her room. Someone was looking for something!
"The letter was presumably posted to buy time and delay suspicion. For the same reason Soering unsuccessfully tried to turn off the porch light."
That sounds like a quite poor explanation. Gardner told Soering in his interview in October 85 that they had several person testifying that they had been expected for that Saturday according to help Derek with the letter. Howard had contact shortly before that weekend where Nancy told him that both will join LC at the weekend. And Richard had realized Elizabeth panicking while Richard confronted Haysom with his equation: sender of letter=killer!
Sorry dude. Not everything in this case is ending up with a double murderer named Soering 🤷
"The light was on and Soering told a story of coming back to the house in oder to turn it off"
Which is it?
He did indeed return and try and switch it off because he didn't want to attract suspicion the next day as a porch light on during daytime would have been out of character.
Elizabeth did no deals and her lawyers said they'd never known anything like it and advised her against admitting full culpability without something in return.
Remember there was no forensic evidence, just the confession so she could easily have negotiated a more lenient sentence in return for her cooperation instead of giving it away gratis
Elizabeth facing a potential death penalty is BS spun by Soering, just like him pretending he thought he had diplomatic immunity
Well you are believing the theory of the commonwealth like Andrew at 99,9% or more. If you are able to rethink everything you will realize that it is more likely that there had been no event of a Soering talking to the Haysoms about Lizzies financial problems or being not accepted as her lover. Both had been invited for that weekend. There was no third set of dishes to throw it into the dumpster. And no ride to the dumpster while bleeding profunsely. That is the most logical explanation which is in line with the forensic results, why there is no blood in the car, which Gardner had admitted after luminol and swab tests! But anyway I have stated my theory of an overwhelming event from the front and back door which give me the strongest confirmation about the events happened at the crime scene several times. You can take it or leave it. You are adopting the blogging arguments of Adrew's debunking scheme here. I am immune of it. There would be no sense that Haysom's own family had demanded the maximum punishment which is possible and telling to led her to the electric chair in trial interviews which is completely isolated of a storytelling and lying Soering 😉 so be aware of adopting too much of monotone narratives from anyone. IMO, diplomatic immunity has inspired Soering to commit murder and to tell a single killer version. Nothing else would fit his plans in his yokel letter. Haysom had only a Canadian ID but not a diplomatic visa making extradition more possible (in his naive pov!)
They've done themselves credit and learnt some valuable but painful lessons along the way.
I'm hoping Eva Beck is not the real name of Annabel? Bit confused here.
Now looking forward to listening to Labrynth Ep 47 and the Soering version!
Not an error, but for completeness sake it would have been fascinating to have got their reaction had you also mentioned that Soering's lawyer Stephen Rosenfeld previously represented Elizabeth
Considering that Jens Söring had been lying to Knox and Robinson for years, I found their reaction to discovering that fact reasonable and fair-minded. They told him what they had discovered *in the Wright Report* -- long before they even got in touch with me -- and contacted him to get his side of the story. His angry, paranoid response was typical for anyone who has ever questioned his claims; I cite several similar instances in the book.
The key to changing their minds was the Wright Report, which convinces 99% of readers that Söring's claims are unfounded. I simply provided some extra context and background on American law.
If Söring decides to stop actively seeking out the spotlight to make false and defamatory claims about innocent people, he will no longer face criticism online from me or any of the thousands of people who have realized his innocence claims are meritless. The ball is, and has always been, in his court. I believe his release on parole was justified and hope he re-adjusts to life in freedom. However, that doesn't give him the right to defame innocent people and make false claims with no pushback. Nobody has that right.
One final note: You have attempted to justify his insults against his own family and Knox and Robinson. Yet extreme hostility and overreaction to perceived threats is precisely the character trait which led him to kill the Haysoms.
I suggest you read all four of his confessions from the year 1986, including the one made with his own defense lawyer present and advising him. Read them all, in full, every page. After you do, you'll understand why the jury -- which heard them all, some 5 hours of recording -- convicted him, and every judge rejected his appeals.
This is not a whodunit, and was never even a close case. As the United States Appeals court for the Fourth Circuit put it in 2000, the evidence that Söring "personally killed" the Haysoms is "overwhelming". It's all out there, much of it on this blog. You just have to allow yourself to understand and accept the truth, as Knox and Robinson did.
With the benefit of hindsight, yes, but he thought the police had lots of forensic evidence, which is why he wiped all his fingerprints from his car and accomodation and why he gave up a prestigous scholarship and went on the run to avoid having to provide his fingerprints to the police.
He thought by confessing immediately, several minutes into his first interview at Richmond police station and by throwing Elizabeth under the bus, that he might escape the death penalty and serve his sentence in Germany.
Söring's father spent the end of his career in the windswept wastes of Mauritania, a country which still has slavery, and in Papua New Guinea. These are both places young diplomats go to start their careers. He lived alone in dingy compounds in dangerous, disease-infested foreign nations for years to earn hazard pay so he could pay down the debts he had incurred (including a second mortgage on his house) for legal fees and other expenses -- quite possibly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Who do you think paid for the psychiatric evaluations by two of Britain's most prominent forensic psychiatrists (both of whom Söring confessed to)? Who do you think paid for the all-star team of English, European and American lawyers who took his case all the way to the ECHR? Who do you think paid for 11 years of appeals, including post-trial evidentiary hearings, filed by top-flight legal talent?
If he chose to use part of Söring's inheritance to pay down these debts he had occurred solely and exclusively to fund his son's legal appeals and provide support for him in prison, I cannot blame him.
Until December 17, 2019, Söring attacked his father (and sometimes his brother) in interviews and in print, calling them liars and cheats. He did this in his 2012 German-language book Not Guilty and in A Far, Far Better Thing. He specifically cited them "cheating" him out of his inheritance as the reason for their 2001 rupture, and even accused his father of threatening his very life by cutting off deposits to his prison commissary account.
It was only after his "exit interview" with Sandy Hausman on Dec. 17th:
that Söring suddenly realized something: One of the first questions from German journalists would be what it was like to reunite with his family. So, as he so often does, he changed his tune. He now adopted his current line, in which he says his family supported him "admirably" (vorbildlich) for 15 years, and then some mysterious breach occurred which he refuses to explain. He now also expresses regret for all the suffering he caused his family, which presumably is sincere, since he did in fact basically destroy his parents' lives.
His father continues to decline to have anything to do with him. I for one don't blame him. Perhaps the height of hypocrisy was when he wrote in his 2021 book "Return to Life" that he felt sorry for himself that he wasn't able to share Christmas with his family in 2019. He conveniently failed to mention that he had slagged off his father and brother as dishonest grifters just *eight days* beforehand.
Nothing Söring says can be taken at face value. There is manipulation behind every sentence he writes or speaks. All this, and much much more, is in my book.
Apart from his Type O blood at the scene, although it can't be proved it's his, but the DNA does not exclude him and the drifters can be ruled out foresically, so the pool of other donors is non existent
Amanda lived there so not surprising her DNA may have been on one of the kitchen knives. Rafaele's DNA was found on the bra clasp, which itself lay undiscovered at the murder scene for several weeks! But that's assuming you overlook the massive contamination of evidence - look at the videos of the crime scene collections.
The real killer, who had form for burglary and was probably surprised by Meredith returning home while he was using their toilet, was properly convicted and bizarrely fast tracked through the system and is now free.
The other prosecutions were completely ludicrous.
Also it's always very revealing to watch the news coverage when prisoners are freed.
Amanda was very emotional and in a right state.
Soring was fist pumping and victorious- it seemed staged.
You're recycling talking points which have long since been discredited. Söring himself has abandoned many of these points, as he realizes they have been discredited. The crime-scene evidence, including items never before DNA tested, is all set up for brand-new tests using the latest technology. With one simple signature, Söring can authorize testing of all the crime-scene evidence, for free, at no risk to himself. Unless it proves his guilt. Which is why he is refusing it, although all other people have consented.
Read this blog for more. You seem woefully underinformed.
If you want to catch up on where the debate stands now, I recommend this podcast:
You seem like a nice person, but you have no idea what's going on in this case. All of your questions have been answered, some 4-5 years ago. Just do a bit of research.
There's footage of him signing for some cash just before he leaves prison and he's making jokes.
Seemed a bit strange but who knows?
What I didn't like in his podcast with Knox was the way he tried to make out he was more of a victim than her because his incarceration dwarfed hers.
Well, he's guilty and she's innocent and she didn't know she would be released after four years. She was doing 27 years for a crime she didn't commit!!
As the admin for the original and extant Perugia Murder File twitter account (@PerugiaMurderFi) which supports Amanda Knox's obvious innocence I was appalled by her support for a man obviously guilty of murdering two helpless senior citizens.
Hearing that she's published an interview with Hammel enables me to regain some of the respect for her previously lost.
Knox‘s original podcast episodes about Söring in “The Truth about True Crime” are so cringeworthy that you may need to have your toes surgically uncurled after listening to all of them (“Let’s all go to Germany when Jens gets out! Yay!!”). I didn’t watch the footage of Söring‘s arrival in Germany, but as far as I know, neither Knox nor Flom, Grisham or Sheen were lined up at the airport.
Regarding Martin Sheen, I found his interview in “The Truth about True Crime” somewhat enlightening. Apparently he is a good Christian man who had smoke blown up his you-know-what by someone whom he perceived to be a devout Catholic as well.
Mein Kommentar unter dem vorherigen Podcast-Blogeintrag passt hier immer noch.
Deshalb für mehr Vielfalt in Englisch:
"Clever connect to Knox that she was innocent. I'm sure that was conducive to making this podcast happen. Two sentences doesn't explain it, especially when one sentence quotes the verdict. It also sounded a bit different on Terrys/Nigel's site, back in the days of her first podcast series with Söring.
Please write about her case and justify your opinion.
Then I am fascinated how uncritically they question your monologue. Certainly, within an hour it is impossible to hold the facts/ambiguities in the case against each other. To monocausally string together interpretations, of course, is enough for that.
So background facts:
1. confessions
You leave out a crucial fact in your enumeration. In the last confession, Elizabeth Haysom appears at the crime scene, which also fits the end of the love affair between the two.
You leave out all the contradictions that clearly show that Söring is telling about things that he did not experience in part because no evidence or logical explanations can be found. We are not talking about two or three details here, but rather about at least 15-20 (painting, food, set of dishes, table, shoe marks, blood in the car, trash can ride, blood in the shower, missing blood on Derek's chair just to touch on a few topics). To explain this with alcoholized is not plausible and is not enough.
2. the letter with the tax return of Derek Haysom, which Elizabeth was supposed to write with her father on the day of the crime, and was postmarked in DC on Monday following the weekend of the crime, remains unmentioned! You don't have an explanation for this, as the investigators didn't get anywhere either. No fingerprints of the two (on this letter) that were expected to the weekend from the Haysoms. It is an inconvenient piece of evidence that also fell under the table in both trials. It is inconceivable that lone perpetrator Söring would start looking for this letter at the Haysoms to take back to DC. For Richard and Howard Haysom and Massie at times obviously the ultimate evidence that Elizabeth was not in DC. A DNA test from the glue area (saliva) is more than interesting!
3. expert opinion
It should be mentioned that Dr.Hamilton is Dr.Bullard's husband. This made it even easier to commission an expert opinion in the direction of Manslaughter.
4. DNA
No word on the fact that Gist said in the courtroom in 1990, no more blood available for DNA testing. That is a trial fact! No word on the fact that Söring was to be deported in 2010/11. I wonder why. Yes of course also because of the DNA results from 2009. Why then drum up the press extra loudly. That Derek Haysom's DNA was not requested by the DFS as reference DNA in 2009 is a total absurdity. After the direct cancellation of deportation, Söring fell into a deep hole. This should be understandable even for Söring critics!
5. alibi
I find it a bit naive to assume that Haysom stayed in DC because she says so and Jens says so in London in 1986. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence (letters) that he was deliberately keeping her away from the scene of the crime because he was just providing probation for her!!! Her defiant "I did it myself" doesn't sound like a joke to me, but rather like a "you probably don't trust me to do it". What they experienced together which should be too horrible for a continuation of the relationship doesn't fit with her partying in a bar in DC while he mutilates Derek Haysom's face! Also, he wrote "would piss me off" if he had read in a letter if she had completely taken the blame as a single perpetrator.
The key indication that both were in LC is the missing movie ticket to the last show, among all other implausible statements. There was enough money (jewelry sale!).
6. deal
So just because Updike says there was no deal, there was no deal. Wow. (He was the guy arguing positively on her in the direction of the parole board at her first hearing!) However, there was an early parole for Elizabeth 8 years after her sentence. That led to pressure from the family to have Judge Sweeney still write to the parole board (after her sentence) to tell them not to release her too soon. Corresponding reactions of the family then also to her first parole hearing!
She justified her decision not to fight through her deportation any further by saying that she did not want to rot in prison! Neaton gets even in the cross-examination with Haysom suitable answers. Rosenfield confirms it.
I've been in contact with Haysom myself. She is nice and open minded and she doesn't want to talk about the past. Her wording was "my horrible crime" without fingerpointing at Söring which fits self reflection and remorse. She is undoubtedly a better person. But should the thesis that she was at the scene of the crime be true, there is certainly no reason for her to go to the press, but much more for leaving the press behind. Same of course for DNA retesting!!!
I have to agree with you, I think they were both at LC that night.
So who was paying for room service?
You have to look at the invoice. The credit card of Klaus Soering was charged when check out. But before Yale Feldman testified that probably between 05.30 and before 11 pm a charge information about 33USD was received at the reception on the 30th of March in 85! Nothing else. The forged signed roomservice with direct payment via this credit card by Haysom coming out of the shower is one of her great fairy tales. It is too friendly and untypical for any investigator like Terry W. to simply adopt this version without any proof!
Neaton had to fall on his sword at trial when they were suddenly found and say he'd had the receipts all along but had forgotten about them.
Soring assumed the police had the lift and lobby CCTV footage and therefore corroborated it by confessing at Richmond police station that Elizabeth brought down a coat for him to wear as he had no pants.
Stoppercrime (aka Andrew?)
Can we make a check for the fact that there was no evidence that Haysom had stayed in DC to create a "proper" alibi (party, consuming drugs, missing 2 tickets for the third show). The two didn't mention any existence of a second ticket for the last show. Only stupid excuses why it was missing.
Now you are coming with the next story out of the Wright report. Wright's strong belief (he speculates but doesn't know) that Soering (who could have also keep quiet) confessed cause Soering believed that the police have strong evidence against him. So Wright is pointing to Jens statement of being recorded in the elevator being naked beyond a coat.
Funfact. The cam in the elevator had never been recorded. Just monitored. So the video did never exist. Next funfact. If you are a structured killer full of plans and you know that you will have to use the monitored elevator after coming back from the crime scene. What do you want to know about this camera? Why is Soering writing to Elizabeth that the American cops don't have any serious against them to calm her down, while Gardner was in London?
Even more plausible is, that Soering still saw the need to protect Elizabeth in front of 3 investigators with a single killer version!
There has never been any suggestion that a third party was involved. If they were both at LC, who made the telephone call to the University and wrote down two numbers on a piece of paper in the room. It was Elizabeth trying to remember her pin number and trying to contact a friend to retrieve the pin from her room. She ended up having to use Klaus Soering's credit card.
If they were both at LC, why did they leave the porch light on?
2 x 45 years doesn't sound like much of a deal.
Virginia had the lowest early release date of states with active parole boards. 12%.
Sweeney wrote of his own volition and it's a stain on his judicial career.
The door light on or off is absolutely irrelevant in the direction who killed the Haysoms. The light was on and Soering told a story of coming back to the house in order to turn it off. And Updike made a theory out of it. If you are the killer who see the need to switch it to off you can go through the house and try every switch or use the fuse switch, or destroy the bulb. The Haysom bodies had been found cause Elizabeth had called the Massies because she would need money for her dorm fee and not why the light was burning. I'm sure they needed the light to have a better look for the door/trunk of the car but they forgot the knob of the screendoor.
The worst sentence possible for Elizabeth without a plea deal could have been the death sentence (and Richard and Howard made their demand for the strongest punishment that is possible at the trial, so an early parole was quite ridiculous for them!!!) but the main thing is, that Elizabeth first got known to her punishment as she was talking to Sweeney and not as she left London after talking to Updike! Her demand for leaving London, ending her fight for extradition was also that Soering will get the same punishment (logical for two killers). Her hope was to get an early parole with the help of Updike. So the deal was more with him (being his keywitness) than with the court!
To be more serious, if you are planning a double murder, would you take the risk to drive two times to a dumpster and someone could recognize your rental car?
1.Accessory before the fact is not a capital offence and she was never charged with murder because there was no evidence she committed the murders. In fact the killer explicitily said she didn't.
2.No need to go to all that trouble trying every light switch, tripping the fuse and busting the bulb. Elizabeth lived there and knew the switch was in the master bedroom and would have turned it off had she been there.
3. The letter was presumably posted to buy time and delay suspicion. For the same reason Soering unsuccessfully tried to turn off the porch light.
Unsurprisingly he didn't want to fly a kite.
But if they weren't trying to buy time, why not just leave the door open with all the lights on for any passer by?
Sorry but you're wrong.
"An accessory to murder is charged based on the degree of the murder. However, a person may face similar charges to the principal offender if they were an accessory before the fact. They can receive a life sentence in prison or a death sentence for first-degree murder🤷" and the indictment was initiated on capital murder.
I don't get your argument.
"Elizabeth lived there and knew the switch was in the master bedroom and would have turned it off had she been there."
But why???
They could have forgotten it. They could have decided to let it on cause it was on as they arrived and also the courtains had all been down. So why that? Why the Voodooism? The question on or off was irrelevant for them. You should rest with the knowledge that there happened some incidents at the crime scene which can not be explained without their thoughts at the event. But what also fits perfectly to her presence in the house was the condition of her room. Someone was looking for something!
"The letter was presumably posted to buy time and delay suspicion. For the same reason Soering unsuccessfully tried to turn off the porch light."
That sounds like a quite poor explanation. Gardner told Soering in his interview in October 85 that they had several person testifying that they had been expected for that Saturday according to help Derek with the letter. Howard had contact shortly before that weekend where Nancy told him that both will join LC at the weekend. And Richard had realized Elizabeth panicking while Richard confronted Haysom with his equation: sender of letter=killer!
Sorry dude. Not everything in this case is ending up with a double murderer named Soering 🤷
"They could have forgotten it"
You previously commented:
"The light was on and Soering told a story of coming back to the house in oder to turn it off"
Which is it?
He did indeed return and try and switch it off because he didn't want to attract suspicion the next day as a porch light on during daytime would have been out of character.
Elizabeth did no deals and her lawyers said they'd never known anything like it and advised her against admitting full culpability without something in return.
Remember there was no forensic evidence, just the confession so she could easily have negotiated a more lenient sentence in return for her cooperation instead of giving it away gratis
Elizabeth facing a potential death penalty is BS spun by Soering, just like him pretending he thought he had diplomatic immunity
Well you are believing the theory of the commonwealth like Andrew at 99,9% or more. If you are able to rethink everything you will realize that it is more likely that there had been no event of a Soering talking to the Haysoms about Lizzies financial problems or being not accepted as her lover. Both had been invited for that weekend. There was no third set of dishes to throw it into the dumpster. And no ride to the dumpster while bleeding profunsely. That is the most logical explanation which is in line with the forensic results, why there is no blood in the car, which Gardner had admitted after luminol and swab tests! But anyway I have stated my theory of an overwhelming event from the front and back door which give me the strongest confirmation about the events happened at the crime scene several times. You can take it or leave it. You are adopting the blogging arguments of Adrew's debunking scheme here. I am immune of it. There would be no sense that Haysom's own family had demanded the maximum punishment which is possible and telling to led her to the electric chair in trial interviews which is completely isolated of a storytelling and lying Soering 😉 so be aware of adopting too much of monotone narratives from anyone. IMO, diplomatic immunity has inspired Soering to commit murder and to tell a single killer version. Nothing else would fit his plans in his yokel letter. Haysom had only a Canadian ID but not a diplomatic visa making extradition more possible (in his naive pov!)
They've done themselves credit and learnt some valuable but painful lessons along the way.
I'm hoping Eva Beck is not the real name of Annabel? Bit confused here.
Now looking forward to listening to Labrynth Ep 47 and the Soering version!
Not an error, but for completeness sake it would have been fascinating to have got their reaction had you also mentioned that Soering's lawyer Stephen Rosenfeld previously represented Elizabeth
Considering that Jens Söring had been lying to Knox and Robinson for years, I found their reaction to discovering that fact reasonable and fair-minded. They told him what they had discovered *in the Wright Report* -- long before they even got in touch with me -- and contacted him to get his side of the story. His angry, paranoid response was typical for anyone who has ever questioned his claims; I cite several similar instances in the book.
The key to changing their minds was the Wright Report, which convinces 99% of readers that Söring's claims are unfounded. I simply provided some extra context and background on American law.
If Söring decides to stop actively seeking out the spotlight to make false and defamatory claims about innocent people, he will no longer face criticism online from me or any of the thousands of people who have realized his innocence claims are meritless. The ball is, and has always been, in his court. I believe his release on parole was justified and hope he re-adjusts to life in freedom. However, that doesn't give him the right to defame innocent people and make false claims with no pushback. Nobody has that right.
One final note: You have attempted to justify his insults against his own family and Knox and Robinson. Yet extreme hostility and overreaction to perceived threats is precisely the character trait which led him to kill the Haysoms.
I suggest you read all four of his confessions from the year 1986, including the one made with his own defense lawyer present and advising him. Read them all, in full, every page. After you do, you'll understand why the jury -- which heard them all, some 5 hours of recording -- convicted him, and every judge rejected his appeals.
This is not a whodunit, and was never even a close case. As the United States Appeals court for the Fourth Circuit put it in 2000, the evidence that Söring "personally killed" the Haysoms is "overwhelming". It's all out there, much of it on this blog. You just have to allow yourself to understand and accept the truth, as Knox and Robinson did.
With the benefit of hindsight, yes, but he thought the police had lots of forensic evidence, which is why he wiped all his fingerprints from his car and accomodation and why he gave up a prestigous scholarship and went on the run to avoid having to provide his fingerprints to the police.
He thought by confessing immediately, several minutes into his first interview at Richmond police station and by throwing Elizabeth under the bus, that he might escape the death penalty and serve his sentence in Germany.
I set out just about everything Söring has publicly said about his family here:
https://thesoeringcase.substack.com/p/why-jens-soring-has-no-contact-with
Söring's father spent the end of his career in the windswept wastes of Mauritania, a country which still has slavery, and in Papua New Guinea. These are both places young diplomats go to start their careers. He lived alone in dingy compounds in dangerous, disease-infested foreign nations for years to earn hazard pay so he could pay down the debts he had incurred (including a second mortgage on his house) for legal fees and other expenses -- quite possibly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Who do you think paid for the psychiatric evaluations by two of Britain's most prominent forensic psychiatrists (both of whom Söring confessed to)? Who do you think paid for the all-star team of English, European and American lawyers who took his case all the way to the ECHR? Who do you think paid for 11 years of appeals, including post-trial evidentiary hearings, filed by top-flight legal talent?
If he chose to use part of Söring's inheritance to pay down these debts he had occurred solely and exclusively to fund his son's legal appeals and provide support for him in prison, I cannot blame him.
Until December 17, 2019, Söring attacked his father (and sometimes his brother) in interviews and in print, calling them liars and cheats. He did this in his 2012 German-language book Not Guilty and in A Far, Far Better Thing. He specifically cited them "cheating" him out of his inheritance as the reason for their 2001 rupture, and even accused his father of threatening his very life by cutting off deposits to his prison commissary account.
It was only after his "exit interview" with Sandy Hausman on Dec. 17th:
https://virginiapublicradio.org/2019/12/17/jens-soering-begins-new-life-in-germany/
that Söring suddenly realized something: One of the first questions from German journalists would be what it was like to reunite with his family. So, as he so often does, he changed his tune. He now adopted his current line, in which he says his family supported him "admirably" (vorbildlich) for 15 years, and then some mysterious breach occurred which he refuses to explain. He now also expresses regret for all the suffering he caused his family, which presumably is sincere, since he did in fact basically destroy his parents' lives.
His father continues to decline to have anything to do with him. I for one don't blame him. Perhaps the height of hypocrisy was when he wrote in his 2021 book "Return to Life" that he felt sorry for himself that he wasn't able to share Christmas with his family in 2019. He conveniently failed to mention that he had slagged off his father and brother as dishonest grifters just *eight days* beforehand.
Nothing Söring says can be taken at face value. There is manipulation behind every sentence he writes or speaks. All this, and much much more, is in my book.
Apart from his Type O blood at the scene, although it can't be proved it's his, but the DNA does not exclude him and the drifters can be ruled out foresically, so the pool of other donors is non existent
Amanda lived there so not surprising her DNA may have been on one of the kitchen knives. Rafaele's DNA was found on the bra clasp, which itself lay undiscovered at the murder scene for several weeks! But that's assuming you overlook the massive contamination of evidence - look at the videos of the crime scene collections.
The real killer, who had form for burglary and was probably surprised by Meredith returning home while he was using their toilet, was properly convicted and bizarrely fast tracked through the system and is now free.
The other prosecutions were completely ludicrous.
Also it's always very revealing to watch the news coverage when prisoners are freed.
Amanda was very emotional and in a right state.
Soring was fist pumping and victorious- it seemed staged.
You're recycling talking points which have long since been discredited. Söring himself has abandoned many of these points, as he realizes they have been discredited. The crime-scene evidence, including items never before DNA tested, is all set up for brand-new tests using the latest technology. With one simple signature, Söring can authorize testing of all the crime-scene evidence, for free, at no risk to himself. Unless it proves his guilt. Which is why he is refusing it, although all other people have consented.
Read this blog for more. You seem woefully underinformed.
If you want to catch up on where the debate stands now, I recommend this podcast:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7i4RbCuSrkXcrjJAXXcQ0m?si=sEL4_5EBQ6qHNrUDP5Dp1w
You seem like a nice person, but you have no idea what's going on in this case. All of your questions have been answered, some 4-5 years ago. Just do a bit of research.
It's legalistic. He says he has to swear under oath that the samples are not contaminated and he's concerned he could be sued.
I don't know if that is mumbo jumbo.
Anyway, the DA said he simply has to ask him to get it tested and he will request it on his behalf.
But he hasn't
I don't know the answer to that, but hopefully it's in Andrew's book.
The DNA did show up and it didn't match theirs. Small Town Big Crime nailed that one.
But they couldn't persuade Soering to request the other DNA testing.
Strange.
I think he's worked out that it definitely won't help his cause
There's footage of him signing for some cash just before he leaves prison and he's making jokes.
Seemed a bit strange but who knows?
What I didn't like in his podcast with Knox was the way he tried to make out he was more of a victim than her because his incarceration dwarfed hers.
Well, he's guilty and she's innocent and she didn't know she would be released after four years. She was doing 27 years for a crime she didn't commit!!
That must rile.