Debate Wrap-Up: McClintock!

Plus, how far into the minefield of Sheena's allegations is Söring willing to venture?

A couple of days ago I participated in a (German-language) debate on the YouTube channel of Maren Giertz. I quite enjoyed it, there may be a rematch on another subject.

During the debate, Jörg mentioned that I had not addressed the “most recent” findings of Dr. J. Thomas McClintock from 8 August 2022. I actually did in some post or another, but I thought they were unimportant that I didn’t go into depth. However, since Söring seems fixated on the subject, let’s look at McClintock’s brief letter, which you can download here.

McClintock’s 2022 Letter

McClintock states that he visited the Virginia Department of Forensic Sciences to look at the 2009 DNA test data with the following goal:

The focus of this review was to determine if evidentiary samples (collected and processed previously) were consistent with a sample containing only one contributor or if the sample appeared to be consistent with a mixture, thus containing more than one contributor.

Note that McClintock is here referring only to the 2009 DNA test. He did not perform any new testing. After reviewing the raw data, McClintock concludes: “The partial profiles generated from Items 2FE#1, 6FE, 7FE#1, 23K#1, and 35K were consistent with a sample containing only one contributor - not a mixture…. It should be noted that all the samples that were analyzed appeared as samples containing only one contributor and thus only contained one or two bands.”

As I noted during the debate, I fully agree with McClintock’s conclusion: The DNA of only one man was present at the crime scene. That man was Derek Haysom. McClintock’s report does not even mention the words “blood”, “typing”, or “serological”. McClintock is only concerned with DNA, which is found in all human tissues and excretions, not simply blood. McClintock’s conclusion here thus matches all the independent experts to review the evidence: The fragments of DNA found in the small percentage of crime-scene samples which yielded results came from one male donor — Derek Haysom.

There is no “DNA evidence” pointing to other males at the crime scene, and there never has been.

McClintock’s letter from 2022 just confirms this finding, which I and all other experts to look at the issue agree with. That is why I paid little attention to it, it’s a nothingburger.

McClintock then complains that “Apparently, some individuals have presented the argument that I was compensated for my previous work on the Haysom homicides and thus would report findings favorable for Mr. Soering.” He states that he was paid “approximately” $200 by Söring’s lawyer in 2017, but has received no further compensation despite spending “well over 100 hours on this case”.

I don’t understand McClintock’s point here. As I stated in my January 2020 article in the German FAZ newspaper, which you can read for free here, both McClintock and Schanfield are respected experts in their fields. There is no suggestion they have done anything improper. However, like experts in almost all American legal cases, they are partisan experts, hired by and responsible to only one side of the lawsuit.

This does not mean they are liars or shills. It simply means that if they reach conclusions unfavorable to the side that hired them, those conclusions will never see the light of day. When I was actively practicing law, I hired experts on a regular basis. Sometimes their reports were favorable to my client, in which case I furnished them to the court. Sometimes their conclusions were unfavorable to my client. In that case, I paid their bills and then notified them I wouldn’t be needing their services. And nobody ever knew they were involved.

That is how things work in a system with partisan hired experts, such as the USA. I have never suggested Schanfield or McClintock have ever done anything questionable in connection with the Söring case. I do wish he would reply to my requests for comment, however.

How far will Söring venture into the Sheena Haysom minefield?

Since Söring released a YouTube short and a TikTok about Sheena Haysom’s allegations in late August, he hasn’t released any new content, just German translations and re-edits of existing interviews. As I noted in my post on the subject, discussing Sheena’s allegations is dangerous territory for Söring for at least three reasons: Her claims are defamatory, they have been investigated and dismissed by the responsible authorities, and Sheena’s version of events conflicts with Söring’s own theories.

So it’s understandable that in the brief video, Söring does not discuss the allegations in detail, much less endorse them. He simply advises his fans and followers that the allegations…exist. He vaguely claims that they were still being looked into, but if that is true, it is not by the Canadian or American authorities, who already investigated them and found insufficient evidence to press charges or re-open closed cases. The matter is now closed.

Yet perhaps there are die-hard Söring supporters or other parties working behind the scenes trying to find evidence “supporting” Sheena’s allegations. Of course they’re not going to find anything credible; if Sheena had any evidence backing up her claims, we would surely know about it by now. Yet Söring eagerly cites gossip, rumor, and innuendo when he thinks it helps his case. It can hardly be ruled out that he’ll do it again.

Sheena’s allegations are the by-product of a family tragedy compounded by mental illness. She cannot be held fully responsible for broadcasting them on YouTube, since she is suffering from a psychological condition. Söring’s decision to bring attention to these accusations — which, it bears repeating, directly conflict with Söring’s own arguments — was morally dubious at best.

Sheena’s allegations have caused enormous harm and anguish to the Haysom family, who angrily resent Söring’s decision to amplify them to his followers. The TikTok video in which Söring praises Sheena for her “courage” in defaming her family currently has 350,000 views. It is especially galling that Söring doesn’t even have the honesty to actually say whether he believes Sheena’s claims. The only thing that matters to Söring, apparently, is that her accusations got people to pay attention to him for a short while.

Söring would do well to never mention Sheena Haysom again and leave the surviving members of the Haysom family to deal with this private tragedy in peace. After all, Söring has jealously guarded his private life and relationship status since returning to Germany. Reporters who have spoken to him on the subject have stated that he refuses to answer questions on certain aspects of his relationship status and private life. If they become aware of his current circumstances, he asks interested parties not to reveal the information publicly. All have complied with his wishes so far.

Söring has the right to request privacy and discretion, of course, just like the Haysom family. Unlike Söring, however, they have never sought the spotlight. Söring’s continued efforts to draw attention to himself and his case weaken his claim to privacy: Anyone who actively seeks publicity and profit from his own life story must anticipate that people will be curious about how that story is progressing right now. Indeed, there are dozens of comments under his videos asking him these questions.

Söring doesn’t respond to these comments. That’s his prerogative. But, one may ask, why should anyone extend to Söring the discretion he demands for his own private life when he has broadcast the Haysom family’s private tragedy to 1/3 of a million people, if you trust TikTok? How would he like it if his private circumstances were broadcast to hundreds of thousands of strangers?

It’s a question Söring should ask himself before he contemplates any further public discussion of Sheena Haysom’s allegations.