Can Inspector Daniela Finally Crack the Case?

The jury, Bedford County, the Virginia Department of Forensic Sciences, the courts of Virginia & the U.S. federal government, & Scotland Yard are no match for a plucky German ghostwriter!

“Dear God, this crime wasn’t even committed by a human!”

Daniela Hillers is a ghostwriter and publisher from Hamburg, Germany who has taken it upon herself to solve the Haysom murders, which, as we know, have been baffling detectives for almost 4 decades now. Who could have committed these dastardly crimes? What evidence can lead us to the killer or killers? How high does the conspiracy reach? To the very top?

I wish Ms. Hillers the best of luck in this challenging enterprise, and will be following it every step of the way with interest. On her LinkedIn page, she has already shared some stunning revelations. First of all, she reveals a “shocking detail” which “moved her especially”: Before Söring’s trial, the judge “announced Söring [sic] guilt in the media.” WHAT?! This is horrifying. How can the United States call itself a nation based on the rule of law when judges hold press conferences announcing that the defendant is guilty before the trial even begins?¹

Someone Wrote a Book about this Case?!

But there’s more: “It was scarcely believable that an author wrote a fictional book about the murder case and, on the steps of the courthouse, sold it out of a suitcase, so to speak. There was no concern for ethics or decency. Miserable populism, which has nothing to do with the vocation of an author…. That won’t be the case with my book; I’d rather stop writing than stoop that low.” I feel humbled to be in the presence of such rectitude.

Funny thing is, Ms. Hillers doesn’t actually name the book. She posts a picture of the book’s flyleaf with various signatures, but the photo doesn’t show the printed name of the book or its author. She’s thus following Söring’s Voldemort strategy: Do not name the Accursed Ones! The name of the author of this book does not even appear in Söring’s own 2021 book “Return to Life”. Strange, that.

At the risk of activating The Curse, allow me to speak That Which Hillers Cannot Bring Herself to Name — “Beyond Reason” by Ken Englade:

It was published on November 1, 1990, and currently has a 4-star rating from nearly 500 reviews on US Amazon. It was translated into German under the title “Where all Mercy Ends”:

Englade’s book is, of course, not fictional. It’s based on documents and interviews with “Jim Updike, Ricky Gardner, Chuck Reid, Ken Beever, Geoffrey Brown, Colin Nicholls, Carroll Baker, Debbie Kirkland, Jennifer Thomas, Carl Wells, Hugh Jones, and Jack Rice and his crew”, among others.

Beyond Reason contains a few mistakes, which is inevitable in books like this, which are the first draft of history. However, it’s immensely readable and reasonably accurate, especially considering it was mostly written before Söring’s trial. It also paints unflattering portraits of both Elizabeth Haysom and Jens Söring.

The book also contains the following passages, which are based on interviews with detectives, psychiatrists, and Haysom herself (whether directly or indirectly):

When [Söring and Haysom] appeared together in court again in February 1987, Jens growled at her, "You're going to be damned sorry.” He must have added something even more threatening because the next time they appeared in court, he was handcuffed to a policeman and was kept well away from her…

Take [Söring’s] grandmother,” Elizabeth said. “He wanted her money.” He had a plan, she said, whereby she and Jens would go to his grandmother’s house in Germany and lock themselves inside. “Then he wanted to hook her up to some kind of electric gizmo and torture her until she gave us money. Then afterwards we obviously would kill her.” “But you never went there,” Gardner pointed out.

She conceded that was true. But it did not stop Jens from planning. For instance, there was his plot to murder Gardner. “Tell me about that,” Gardner said, curious to see how far Jens had gone in allegedly mapping out his demise. “He found out where you lived,” Elizabeth said…

After the murders, she said, Jens decided that killing people was “quite a nice occupation.” He had, in fact, drawn up a hitlist of people he wanted to get rid of. Among those on the list were her half-brother, Howard, Jens’s grandmother, and his parents. Elizabeth looked pensive. “His parents wouldn’t be giving me such a hard time if they knew that I prevented him from doing them as he had done my parents,” she said.

Why did he want to kill Howard? Gardner asked. “He just didn’t like him,” Elizabeth said matter- of-factly.

Why his parents? “He didn’t like them either. I think he found them too difficult.”

Can you see why Söring doesn’t want people even naming this book? If you would like to taste the Forbidden (by Söring) Fruit, it’s even available as an audiobook.

Has Nobody Ever Thought of DNA Testing?

Hillers then announced that she’s going to a meeting “in a DNA laboratory with one of the 15 best and leading DNA experts in the USA”. I’m not exactly sure how one determines the 15 “best and leading” DNA experts, but I supposed Hillers has her methods. In any case, it’s certainly high time someone thought about testing the evidence in this case.

But it would be a pretty challenging task. First, you’d have to get permission to examine the evidence. Second, you’d have to determine what condition it’s in. Third, you’d have to consult with experts to find the most promising items. Fourth, you’d have to consult with a lawyer to see how to formulate the request. Fifth, you’d have to agree on a neutral, independent firm to handle and transmit the evidence to preserve a chain of custody. Sixth, you’d have to find an reliable DNA lab to do the testing. And seventh, you’d have to get the consent of the current District Attorney.

That’s a lot of work. How do we know? Because it’s all been done already by Courteney Stuart and Rachel Ryan, the podcasters of “Small Town, Big Crime”. They spend untold hours laying the groundwork for new DNA testing using advanced tools and ultra-powerful algorithms well beyond what was available in 2009. All the podcasters needed was Söring’s consent.

Söring, of course, refused. If you follow those links, you can find the long YouTube videos in which Söring says that he’s not opposing DNA testing because incredibly powerful new testing methods could establish his presence at the crime scene. Of course not, that couldn’t possibly be the reason. The real reason, as he explains is, uh, statutory prerequisites and perjury and the state of the evidence and — look, a squirrel!

It would be a shame to see Hillers spend hundreds of hours replicating the work already done by Stuart and Ryan only to be met with Söring’s refusal. Or would it?

1. On second thought, this.