"Updike lehnt eine Überstellung Sörings nach Deutschland ab, da er wahrscheinlich in einigen Jahren entlassen würde. Updike fordert zwei aufeinanderfolgende lebenslängliche Freiheitsstrafen."
Ist ersteres tatsächlich eine juristisch zulässige Begründung, jemanden nicht auszuliefern? Updikes Ablehnung impliziert doch indirekt, dass man das deutsche Strafrecht für unzulänglich hinsichtlich der hier üblichen Strafen hält. Hatte Deutschland überhaupt einen Antrag auf Auslieferung gestellt?
No. The only reason Updike even mentioned the issue is that the Söring family statement had brought it up. Nobody else even considered the issue.
Germany and the U.S. have had an agreement allowing prisoner transfer since the early 1970s, but it is ***incredibly, extremely unusual*** for an actual transfer to take place in a murder case. It's only happened maybe 20-25 times in 50 years, and it's usually because of weird circumstances that don't apply in ordinary cases, such as for severe psychological problems or a unique form of therapy for an illness or something like that. 99.99% of prisoners in severe felony cases everywhere serve out their entire prison sentence in the country where they committed the crime.
Germany certainly hadn't requested a transfer for Söring at this early date, at least as far as I know. There would have been no point. Any prisoner transfer would only take place after the prisoner has served much of the sentence in the country where they committed the crime.
Prisoner transfers are 100% discretionary -- they can be approved or denied for any reason or no reason at all. No prisoner has a right to a transfer, or to an explanation why their request was refused. It's an act of grace like pardon, *not* a legal procedure. So Updike and anyone else can oppose the transfer request for any reason they want.
Updike's reason is that if Söring were transferred to Germany, he would likely be released in perhaps 5 or 10 years, which would have been regarded as an outrageously light sentence for a horrible act of butchery committed under Virginia law. The views and priorities of law enforcement in the country where the crime was committed are very relevant in prisoner transfer requests.
Spätestens seit dem Interview mit dem Rechtsanwalt von Sörings beauftragter Kanzlei in dem Netflix-4Teiler sollte dein Blogbeitrag, was Anwälte Mandanten so anraten, ja begründet widerlegt sein. Dieser Anwalt hatte bereits schriftlich Söring die Strategie in 86 zur Auslieferung nach Deutschland bestätigt und dieses Schreiben war auch Bestandteil der Fileakte von Anabel H. an Hammel. Andrew hat es aber nie für nötig befunden es richtig darzustellen. Es war gut, dass Netflix diesen Anwalt interviewt hat!
Hi Doc! You're confusing two things. Was it Söring's strategy to get to Germany? Of course it was! Nobody has ever disputed this, duh. One thing that lawyer did not say, though, was that he told Jens Söring *not to claim his innocence* from 1986 to June 18th, 1990. As I have pointed out, the ECHR would not have given two shits what Söring said about his case, as his comments were totally irrelevant to the legal issues in the case.
Söring made up this lie to try to explain the horribly awkward fact that he still claimed to be sacrificing his freedom for Elizabeth long after their relationship had ended. Mensching said nothing about this, but if Söring signed a release, Mensching and Frieser could tell us whether Söring's claim is true.
Soering's worst case strategy to end up in Germany had started right before he had planned and perpetrate two murders together with his girl friend, cause of his blue diplomatic visa. Haysom only had an Canadian passport. Otherwise you have to convince me that he was willing to take the risk to get fried in Virginia. What I want to remind you is that you within your scheme to present us Soering as a "pathological" liar had missed out some serious facts. The myth of the strategy to be extradited to Germany passes also some speculations of a Schroeder functioning as a consultant (Wright's theory) in '86 and Elizabeth's interview of '89 telling the idea of extradition to Germany came from his father. But you wrote in your blog entry spreading doubts that an attourney never would advise his client to burden yourself with evidence (to confess having committed a murder) to get extradited. At the time of your writing this, you had aknowledge of the email of Soering's attourney. To make a short story not too long.....His statement in Netflix showed that Soering wasn't lying about this in his books. It was part of the strategy and the need to have evidence for the extradition to Germany.
It's just the difference that Soering want to sell us that he only had confessed....(blablabla while being innocent)....although he was at the crime scene. But this is an interesting difference in this complex case. So if you just want to catch hater with your writing you can leave all the differences out. But you call yourself an expert with an Havard title in law!
Ich glaube, Sie überschätzen sich ein wenig. Herr Hammels Qualfiktionen sprechen für sich. Ich für meinen Teil beschaffe und beurteile Beweismittel seit Jahrzehnten berufsmässig, auch für Behörden und Anwälte. Sörings Geschichten sind von A bis Z nicht stimmig und es kann daher keine Zweifel an seiner Schuld geben. Es gilt hier, die Fakten als Ganzes zu beurteilen, frei von Emotionen. Schon allein der Umstand, dass Söring vier (!!!) verschiedene Gründe angibt, weshalb er während Jahren fälschlicherweise gestanden haben soll, ist völlig lebensfremd. Dass er es seit Jahrzehnten vermeidet, seine Anwälte dazu aussagen zu lassen, ist gleich ein weiterer Punkt. Rechtlich gesehen sind seine angeblichen Gründe für seine Geständnisse Unsinn, und man sucht daher in seinen Aussagen auch vergebens Hinweise auf Gesetze, Gerichtsunterlagen und Judikatur. Und das ist bei Weitem nicht das Einzige, was an seiner Geschichte nicht stimmt.
Urs, ich kann ihnen auch nicht ganz folgen. Welche 4 Gründe meinen Sie ? Was meinen Sie mit: "Rechtlich gesehen sind seine angeblichen Gründe für seine Geständnisse Unsinn, und man sucht daher in seinen Aussagen auch vergebens Hinweise auf Gesetze, Gerichtsunterlagen und Judikatur" ?
1. Sörings Satz, dass er auf Anraten seiner Anwälte gegenüber dem deutschen Anwalt/Staatsanwalt gestanden hat, um für Beweismittel im Sinne einer Überstellung nach Deutschland zu sorgen, ist losgelöst betrachtet bestätigt und hat objektiv betrachtet nichts mit Inhalt oder Schuldfrage zutun. Somit verliert sich journalistische Qualität für mich ab dem Punkt, an dem man sich spekulativ zu weit aus dem Fenster lehnt, und "juristisch" falsch urteilt, über Vorgänge, die wahrhaftig so abgelaufen sind!
Inhaltlich haben wir bekannterweise den Fakt vorliegen, dass Söring seine dann Exfreundin (die er noch ein bißchen liebt) an den Tatort zieht. Genau dies zu negieren war doch zuvor eine wahrhaftige Mission von ihm. Dieses Thema kommt bei Hammel, Wright und sogar bei Netflix viel zu kurz.
2. Bin ich überzeugt von der 2-Täter-Theorie. Ich muss also weder Söring noch Haysom in irgendeiner Weise verteidigen, verharmlosen, überhöhen oder gar verniedlichen. Mir geht es in dem Fall blos um Wahrheiten.
Ich würde nicht für andere sprechen, wenn der eigene Bewertungshorizont offensichtlich Lücken aufzuweisen scheint. Vielleicht mal die Teesorte wechseln 😉
10.000 words every day.....again.....and pushing your book....? how are the sales figures?
It is quite obvious, why they had focused the movie tickets and composing a timeline just for the period after the murders. They both know that they will be confronted with the investigations on different touchpoints. The first one was the memorial service. It is interesting that Haysom had used the same setup for composing the timeline as for the memorial service. She might had a better feeling towards questioning if Kim and Soering will help her to put the story straight by contributing some statements. And we know from Richard Haysom that she had been confronted with the Manila envelope (tax declarations) intensively and she had fallen in panic reactions.I am confirmed about the fact that the movie alibi is completely faked. But it was a good fake. Therefore they feared that the investigation could find out the fake if they will push the ticket as an alibi too hard, namely in Haysom's first interviews for example. Reid and Gardner could have called the movie theatre asking for specific sales details and a confrontation with photos of both could bring back specific memories of the events of that evening
It is quite interesting how emotional Soering is getting about the 2perp version. He is selling Yale Feldman's testimony in which Feldman is assuming a most likely time frame of the room service and the movie tickets especially of the Outer Circle show at 10.15 pm as a waterproof alibi (YT). A smart thing is that these tickets are printed at the moment you'll buy it which was quite innovative in '85. But from there you have different options and the 2 had been smart enough to include this way of ticket sale in their fake alibi. We know from the Lemley interview in '89 that Haysom gave new details compared to her testimony in '87. They could easily check by phone call (also jewelry shops) and personal visiting (since friday) which cinema will offer such type of tickets. Well if you're planning an attack on a two person dinner scene (at the moment where there are in different rooms) you could also plan to fake the alibi, which will turn out to be the most important thing after killing two people! We know that there had been a long distance call from the Marriott. Most likely Haysom had cancelled the meeting together with Soering and her parents, cause they had been expected, but had found out when her parents will going to eat. So getting back to the movie tickets. After their holidays in Europe there had been no reason to follow a faked alibi for both, cause the investigation came closer to both of them. In September Haysom had to give her footprints and blood and Soering was confronted with an interview. Haysom needed a stronger commitment from Soering, who has to confirm her staying in DC. That started with the fingerprint on the coffie mug story in their daily storybook....
I love it when people criticize me for the horrifying, inhuman crime of... (cue terrifying, ominous string music)...marketing my book. Of course I'm pushing my fucking book, you stupid fucking gobshite! Do you think I wrote it just to take up some extra space on my motherfucking hard drive? 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
Newsflash: People who invest thousands of hours into creating something want to bring attention to what they've created. Companies want to sell the products they make. Barbers want you to come into their shop to get your hair cut. Politicians want you to vote for them. And authors want you to read what they write.
The next mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, drooling moron who intimates that there's something improper about a creative artist wanting their work to reach an audience gets banned. Not because I'm offended, just because the stupid burns my eyes.
....and I love your emotional reaction....sounds fucking honest. But how far away is your narrative that if Soering stops his not guilty campaign, your "battle of truth" will stop within hours. We all had experienced from your own words that you are handling that case in an obsessive way and if Soering takes a "break" you are writing blog entries why Soering is taking a break and now you are admitting that you have to push your book for return on investment 😂 do you know the song by Limahl of a neverending story?
Ich bin gespannt und freue mich auf die deutsche Version des Buches! Beste Grüße!
"Updike lehnt eine Überstellung Sörings nach Deutschland ab, da er wahrscheinlich in einigen Jahren entlassen würde. Updike fordert zwei aufeinanderfolgende lebenslängliche Freiheitsstrafen."
Ist ersteres tatsächlich eine juristisch zulässige Begründung, jemanden nicht auszuliefern? Updikes Ablehnung impliziert doch indirekt, dass man das deutsche Strafrecht für unzulänglich hinsichtlich der hier üblichen Strafen hält. Hatte Deutschland überhaupt einen Antrag auf Auslieferung gestellt?
No. The only reason Updike even mentioned the issue is that the Söring family statement had brought it up. Nobody else even considered the issue.
Germany and the U.S. have had an agreement allowing prisoner transfer since the early 1970s, but it is ***incredibly, extremely unusual*** for an actual transfer to take place in a murder case. It's only happened maybe 20-25 times in 50 years, and it's usually because of weird circumstances that don't apply in ordinary cases, such as for severe psychological problems or a unique form of therapy for an illness or something like that. 99.99% of prisoners in severe felony cases everywhere serve out their entire prison sentence in the country where they committed the crime.
Germany certainly hadn't requested a transfer for Söring at this early date, at least as far as I know. There would have been no point. Any prisoner transfer would only take place after the prisoner has served much of the sentence in the country where they committed the crime.
Prisoner transfers are 100% discretionary -- they can be approved or denied for any reason or no reason at all. No prisoner has a right to a transfer, or to an explanation why their request was refused. It's an act of grace like pardon, *not* a legal procedure. So Updike and anyone else can oppose the transfer request for any reason they want.
Updike's reason is that if Söring were transferred to Germany, he would likely be released in perhaps 5 or 10 years, which would have been regarded as an outrageously light sentence for a horrible act of butchery committed under Virginia law. The views and priorities of law enforcement in the country where the crime was committed are very relevant in prisoner transfer requests.
Much more here: https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-oia/guidelines-evaluation-transfer-requests-submitted-foreign-nationals
Danke für die ausführliche Antwort und den aufschlussreichen Link.
Spätestens seit dem Interview mit dem Rechtsanwalt von Sörings beauftragter Kanzlei in dem Netflix-4Teiler sollte dein Blogbeitrag, was Anwälte Mandanten so anraten, ja begründet widerlegt sein. Dieser Anwalt hatte bereits schriftlich Söring die Strategie in 86 zur Auslieferung nach Deutschland bestätigt und dieses Schreiben war auch Bestandteil der Fileakte von Anabel H. an Hammel. Andrew hat es aber nie für nötig befunden es richtig darzustellen. Es war gut, dass Netflix diesen Anwalt interviewt hat!
Hi Doc! You're confusing two things. Was it Söring's strategy to get to Germany? Of course it was! Nobody has ever disputed this, duh. One thing that lawyer did not say, though, was that he told Jens Söring *not to claim his innocence* from 1986 to June 18th, 1990. As I have pointed out, the ECHR would not have given two shits what Söring said about his case, as his comments were totally irrelevant to the legal issues in the case.
Söring made up this lie to try to explain the horribly awkward fact that he still claimed to be sacrificing his freedom for Elizabeth long after their relationship had ended. Mensching said nothing about this, but if Söring signed a release, Mensching and Frieser could tell us whether Söring's claim is true.
Soering's worst case strategy to end up in Germany had started right before he had planned and perpetrate two murders together with his girl friend, cause of his blue diplomatic visa. Haysom only had an Canadian passport. Otherwise you have to convince me that he was willing to take the risk to get fried in Virginia. What I want to remind you is that you within your scheme to present us Soering as a "pathological" liar had missed out some serious facts. The myth of the strategy to be extradited to Germany passes also some speculations of a Schroeder functioning as a consultant (Wright's theory) in '86 and Elizabeth's interview of '89 telling the idea of extradition to Germany came from his father. But you wrote in your blog entry spreading doubts that an attourney never would advise his client to burden yourself with evidence (to confess having committed a murder) to get extradited. At the time of your writing this, you had aknowledge of the email of Soering's attourney. To make a short story not too long.....His statement in Netflix showed that Soering wasn't lying about this in his books. It was part of the strategy and the need to have evidence for the extradition to Germany.
It's just the difference that Soering want to sell us that he only had confessed....(blablabla while being innocent)....although he was at the crime scene. But this is an interesting difference in this complex case. So if you just want to catch hater with your writing you can leave all the differences out. But you call yourself an expert with an Havard title in law!
I go into all of this in great detail in the book. Read it, then come back here and we can have a nice discussion.
Ich glaube, Sie überschätzen sich ein wenig. Herr Hammels Qualfiktionen sprechen für sich. Ich für meinen Teil beschaffe und beurteile Beweismittel seit Jahrzehnten berufsmässig, auch für Behörden und Anwälte. Sörings Geschichten sind von A bis Z nicht stimmig und es kann daher keine Zweifel an seiner Schuld geben. Es gilt hier, die Fakten als Ganzes zu beurteilen, frei von Emotionen. Schon allein der Umstand, dass Söring vier (!!!) verschiedene Gründe angibt, weshalb er während Jahren fälschlicherweise gestanden haben soll, ist völlig lebensfremd. Dass er es seit Jahrzehnten vermeidet, seine Anwälte dazu aussagen zu lassen, ist gleich ein weiterer Punkt. Rechtlich gesehen sind seine angeblichen Gründe für seine Geständnisse Unsinn, und man sucht daher in seinen Aussagen auch vergebens Hinweise auf Gesetze, Gerichtsunterlagen und Judikatur. Und das ist bei Weitem nicht das Einzige, was an seiner Geschichte nicht stimmt.
Urs, ich kann ihnen auch nicht ganz folgen. Welche 4 Gründe meinen Sie ? Was meinen Sie mit: "Rechtlich gesehen sind seine angeblichen Gründe für seine Geständnisse Unsinn, und man sucht daher in seinen Aussagen auch vergebens Hinweise auf Gesetze, Gerichtsunterlagen und Judikatur" ?
Ich kann ihrem Beitrag nicht richtig folgen.
1. Sörings Satz, dass er auf Anraten seiner Anwälte gegenüber dem deutschen Anwalt/Staatsanwalt gestanden hat, um für Beweismittel im Sinne einer Überstellung nach Deutschland zu sorgen, ist losgelöst betrachtet bestätigt und hat objektiv betrachtet nichts mit Inhalt oder Schuldfrage zutun. Somit verliert sich journalistische Qualität für mich ab dem Punkt, an dem man sich spekulativ zu weit aus dem Fenster lehnt, und "juristisch" falsch urteilt, über Vorgänge, die wahrhaftig so abgelaufen sind!
Inhaltlich haben wir bekannterweise den Fakt vorliegen, dass Söring seine dann Exfreundin (die er noch ein bißchen liebt) an den Tatort zieht. Genau dies zu negieren war doch zuvor eine wahrhaftige Mission von ihm. Dieses Thema kommt bei Hammel, Wright und sogar bei Netflix viel zu kurz.
2. Bin ich überzeugt von der 2-Täter-Theorie. Ich muss also weder Söring noch Haysom in irgendeiner Weise verteidigen, verharmlosen, überhöhen oder gar verniedlichen. Mir geht es in dem Fall blos um Wahrheiten.
Andrew Hammel ich finde Sie schrecklich.
Lola, du hast den Satz nicht beendet. Er lautet: "Andrew Hammel, ich finde Sie schrecklich überzeugend!"
Ich würde nicht für andere sprechen, wenn der eigene Bewertungshorizont offensichtlich Lücken aufzuweisen scheint. Vielleicht mal die Teesorte wechseln 😉
Weil er der bessere Autor ist, Lola? 😋
10.000 words every day.....again.....and pushing your book....? how are the sales figures?
It is quite obvious, why they had focused the movie tickets and composing a timeline just for the period after the murders. They both know that they will be confronted with the investigations on different touchpoints. The first one was the memorial service. It is interesting that Haysom had used the same setup for composing the timeline as for the memorial service. She might had a better feeling towards questioning if Kim and Soering will help her to put the story straight by contributing some statements. And we know from Richard Haysom that she had been confronted with the Manila envelope (tax declarations) intensively and she had fallen in panic reactions.I am confirmed about the fact that the movie alibi is completely faked. But it was a good fake. Therefore they feared that the investigation could find out the fake if they will push the ticket as an alibi too hard, namely in Haysom's first interviews for example. Reid and Gardner could have called the movie theatre asking for specific sales details and a confrontation with photos of both could bring back specific memories of the events of that evening
It is quite interesting how emotional Soering is getting about the 2perp version. He is selling Yale Feldman's testimony in which Feldman is assuming a most likely time frame of the room service and the movie tickets especially of the Outer Circle show at 10.15 pm as a waterproof alibi (YT). A smart thing is that these tickets are printed at the moment you'll buy it which was quite innovative in '85. But from there you have different options and the 2 had been smart enough to include this way of ticket sale in their fake alibi. We know from the Lemley interview in '89 that Haysom gave new details compared to her testimony in '87. They could easily check by phone call (also jewelry shops) and personal visiting (since friday) which cinema will offer such type of tickets. Well if you're planning an attack on a two person dinner scene (at the moment where there are in different rooms) you could also plan to fake the alibi, which will turn out to be the most important thing after killing two people! We know that there had been a long distance call from the Marriott. Most likely Haysom had cancelled the meeting together with Soering and her parents, cause they had been expected, but had found out when her parents will going to eat. So getting back to the movie tickets. After their holidays in Europe there had been no reason to follow a faked alibi for both, cause the investigation came closer to both of them. In September Haysom had to give her footprints and blood and Soering was confronted with an interview. Haysom needed a stronger commitment from Soering, who has to confirm her staying in DC. That started with the fingerprint on the coffie mug story in their daily storybook....
I love it when people criticize me for the horrifying, inhuman crime of... (cue terrifying, ominous string music)...marketing my book. Of course I'm pushing my fucking book, you stupid fucking gobshite! Do you think I wrote it just to take up some extra space on my motherfucking hard drive? 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
Newsflash: People who invest thousands of hours into creating something want to bring attention to what they've created. Companies want to sell the products they make. Barbers want you to come into their shop to get your hair cut. Politicians want you to vote for them. And authors want you to read what they write.
The next mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, drooling moron who intimates that there's something improper about a creative artist wanting their work to reach an audience gets banned. Not because I'm offended, just because the stupid burns my eyes.
Ich hoffe, es macht dich reich. Andere versuchen es über GoFundMe. Das ist... bäh
....and I love your emotional reaction....sounds fucking honest. But how far away is your narrative that if Soering stops his not guilty campaign, your "battle of truth" will stop within hours. We all had experienced from your own words that you are handling that case in an obsessive way and if Soering takes a "break" you are writing blog entries why Soering is taking a break and now you are admitting that you have to push your book for return on investment 😂 do you know the song by Limahl of a neverending story?
I recommend having a cup of "silent-November-evening" tea to relax.