Mr. Harrington did not testify--as Soering later would write about the trial and the trial testimony--that there had been "a large bruise under my eye." This is yet another of Soering's lit-tricks. It was not under Soering's eye, if that is how the question was put to his fellow students years later. So, of course, they couldn't remember seeing anything. d it was a bruise that was at least eight days old at that point, if, by then, mostly gone. Perhaps Mr. Harrington, who knew about sports injuries, including those from boxing, would not have noticed this except for the unusual circumstances being that Soering's head was lifted, the view of his cheek was from the side, the lighting in the hall must have revealed the subsiding bruise which I think was located along the back part of the cheek close to or along the jawline. It should be noted that Soering had "high coloring," which perhaps could have helped obscure the bruise.
And then Mr. Harrington noticed that Soering had not one injury to his hand, the left hand, as he precisely noted, but bandages (or Bandaids) on two fingers. Two fingers injured is more interesting than one finger injured, I think it is fair to say.
That Soering actually had these injuries , and that our two perpetrators were so concerned about them that they felt it was necessary to have an explanation ready to be activated should an explanation somehow become necessary, once they had returned to UVA, is pretty well proven, as far as I am concerned, by the mention made at the end of Christine Kim's carefully written itinerary, dictated to her, of Haysom's and Soering's weekend in Washington, D.C. There was an encounter of some sort. This can be interpreted to read that Soering had been in a scuffle or fight with a Georgetown basketball supporter on the street, late in the evening of Saturday, March 30, 1985.
Investigator Reid might be viewed as seeming to imply that Updike is also involved in perjury and misconduct (though Reid wasn't implying this, he was just shooting from the hip) since it was not just Gardner with whom Harrington testified he got in touch with some ten days after the reception at the Massies, but also with Updike. I assume that he could have phoned the office of the Commonwealth's Attorney telling them there at the court house that he wanted to make a witness statement. The call was then referred over to police headquarters near the jail, and, shortly after this, Investigator Gardner got in touch with him. If Updike or his office had passed a phone message along to Gardner he might not have felt it necessary to log it in. But who knows? Maybe Reid is completely off base with this. I don't think he even attended the trial. We don't know what is going on here, except that both Harding and Reid ignored the whole thing when it happened, and years later, all of a sudden get out of their cages about a very complex case that was handled quite well, as I see it. What you have here are a lot of folks who come piling in like gangbusters thirty years later. and they have been completely conned by a slick little Jefferson Scholar, who loves this fucked up mind game. It's not just about the money. If a good- looking German girl maybe from a rough patch of ground decided to take him under her wing and straighten him out, even though she knew what he had done, on the condition that Jens simply give up the lime- light and the media, and the blood money, and get a day job and start and focus himself on his marriage and a family, I don't think he would do it. He loves the game too much. And he's winning!
Warum wurde Mr. Harrington eigentlich als Zeuge zum Hauptverfahren geladen ?
Die Staatsanwaltschaft hat doch offenbar gewußt, daß er die Beobachtungen hinsichtlich Wunden gemacht hat und das kann sie doch nur aus Aufzeichnungen in den Ermittlungsakten gewußt haben ?
Hi Frank, well CK had stipulated not much in order not to sacrifice herself. No recall about the participants who had dictated her the timeline. No recall about any injuries. No recall any contradictions or reasons to write the timeline. Wow. She had a good attourney.
Ask yourself why Massie didn't recall any injuries although she had a big picture as you said? She knew that the Haysoms did expect the couple on that weekend. I am pretty sure she was going to talk about that fact and that she had asked Haysom about it, but was cut off bei Updike's objection during the cross examination by Neaton.
It's possible that Jens was not present when Elizabeth dictated to Christine step by step what they had been doing in Washington DC over that weekend. She stipulated that she could not recall.
The spare key incident happened much earlier. Elizabeth and Jens had rented a car and gone to her parent's house while they were away. My point is only that is a moment when Mrs. Massie said something which suggests that she realized that Jens was a part of the picture.
Hey Frank, if you are talking about Annie Massie being asked for a spare key for the Haysom's house by Jens Soering, you have to prove it. This would be an important statement Updike wouldn't have missed in court. As Massie didn't make any statement like this it should be nonsense. The only thing which make sense is that both wanted to be sure not to get any visit by anybody while slaughtering the Haysoms and cleaning the crime scene. Therefore we have calls to jewel hops for achieving money in DC (don't buy knives with Klaus Soering's credit card) like Haysom stated, but also to doublecheck the Haysoms for staying at Home to be sure the victims are at Loose Chippings. The long distance call didn't went to Beth. That was alibi fiction. It went to the Haysoms. To ask for a spare key is nonsense as Soering's girlfriend has her own one.
I can't remember who told me this in Lynchburg, but there was another man at the Haysom funeral service reception on Easter Sunday, 1985, who also noticed Soering's bruise. He may have also noticed the fingers. This man had been at one point a football referee and had actually been a ref at some very important Big Ten games. There is a little bit more to this question of Soering's bruise than we know. I mean by this that I believe that at least two men there were at some point scrutinizing Soering and there could have been others. I don't know if they shared conclusions or not. They might have. And both men knew sports injuries. In 1989, before Soering was returned, I paid a cold call to this man's residence in Lynchburg, which was the Westminster- Canterbury, and learned that he had died some weeks or months before. I don't know if he was even involved in any way as a witness, or potential witness. Soering had not gone unnoticed. And he would have noticed Mrs. Massie's comments as she registered on him when he went to get the spare key from her on one of his at least two visits to the Haysom's home before he murdered them there. She was warned about him by police, told to be very careful. Soering thought that she was a witch. That she had been there.
Some people were terrified of him. They told me in no uncertain terms.
What do you say about Soering connecting you to his famous ex supporter and all his personal case files . You in the role of her receiver? Well, old story.
Scars? There are two. Haysom testified that she had bandaged Soering after returning to the hotel. But she made a 50% fault in her recollection. She got one finger wrong. The scars that Soering had showed the jury in 1990 were on the index and the little finger of left hand. Soering is righthanded. So the only way of producing selfinflicted wounds would be to stab by holding the knife with both hands slipping over the blade. But the scars Soering referred to are not typical cut scars as they are not plain!
I am very convinced that Soering had learned what to use by studying "Soldier of Fortune". So loosing his blood at the crime scene could also be a result by a scratch of a defensive victim.
The reason why Haysom had to give her blood and footprints in late September was her suspicious behaviour reported by Howard Haysom towards Gardner.
- returning to the crime scene and cleaning the frontdoor/doorhandle
- using unemotional language "Pups brain" in a silly way
- comparison of her food towards a bloody sockprint on the floor
Gardner had to wait for her as she had been on holiday in Europe together with Soering
The results of her footprints were finished in November 85 as they were on the run for weeks, already. If Gardner had connected Baker's report and her shoesize maybe he would had been much faster after listening to her story for the extra miles. Anyway the big questions concerning the testimony of Harrington about bandages on Soering's hand
are:
- there is no explanation for Kim loosing her recollection in her stipulation
- there is no explanation why Howard Haysom nor Annie Massie didn't make any statements about bandages
- there is no explanation why Sheriff Wells had seen them on the funeral, but they weren't documented in the files
- there is no explanation for loosing a lot of blood while driving to the dumpster, that could not been detected - well Wright tried to give theories about that, but none had convinced me, by knowing how luminol does work (so does Reid). So my theory is, there was no meal for Soering, no dumpster, no bloodloss in car, only a small scratch: was this covered on the funeral....maybe
Mr. Harrington did not testify--as Soering later would write about the trial and the trial testimony--that there had been "a large bruise under my eye." This is yet another of Soering's lit-tricks. It was not under Soering's eye, if that is how the question was put to his fellow students years later. So, of course, they couldn't remember seeing anything. d it was a bruise that was at least eight days old at that point, if, by then, mostly gone. Perhaps Mr. Harrington, who knew about sports injuries, including those from boxing, would not have noticed this except for the unusual circumstances being that Soering's head was lifted, the view of his cheek was from the side, the lighting in the hall must have revealed the subsiding bruise which I think was located along the back part of the cheek close to or along the jawline. It should be noted that Soering had "high coloring," which perhaps could have helped obscure the bruise.
And then Mr. Harrington noticed that Soering had not one injury to his hand, the left hand, as he precisely noted, but bandages (or Bandaids) on two fingers. Two fingers injured is more interesting than one finger injured, I think it is fair to say.
That Soering actually had these injuries , and that our two perpetrators were so concerned about them that they felt it was necessary to have an explanation ready to be activated should an explanation somehow become necessary, once they had returned to UVA, is pretty well proven, as far as I am concerned, by the mention made at the end of Christine Kim's carefully written itinerary, dictated to her, of Haysom's and Soering's weekend in Washington, D.C. There was an encounter of some sort. This can be interpreted to read that Soering had been in a scuffle or fight with a Georgetown basketball supporter on the street, late in the evening of Saturday, March 30, 1985.
Investigator Reid might be viewed as seeming to imply that Updike is also involved in perjury and misconduct (though Reid wasn't implying this, he was just shooting from the hip) since it was not just Gardner with whom Harrington testified he got in touch with some ten days after the reception at the Massies, but also with Updike. I assume that he could have phoned the office of the Commonwealth's Attorney telling them there at the court house that he wanted to make a witness statement. The call was then referred over to police headquarters near the jail, and, shortly after this, Investigator Gardner got in touch with him. If Updike or his office had passed a phone message along to Gardner he might not have felt it necessary to log it in. But who knows? Maybe Reid is completely off base with this. I don't think he even attended the trial. We don't know what is going on here, except that both Harding and Reid ignored the whole thing when it happened, and years later, all of a sudden get out of their cages about a very complex case that was handled quite well, as I see it. What you have here are a lot of folks who come piling in like gangbusters thirty years later. and they have been completely conned by a slick little Jefferson Scholar, who loves this fucked up mind game. It's not just about the money. If a good- looking German girl maybe from a rough patch of ground decided to take him under her wing and straighten him out, even though she knew what he had done, on the condition that Jens simply give up the lime- light and the media, and the blood money, and get a day job and start and focus himself on his marriage and a family, I don't think he would do it. He loves the game too much. And he's winning!
Warum wurde Mr. Harrington eigentlich als Zeuge zum Hauptverfahren geladen ?
Die Staatsanwaltschaft hat doch offenbar gewußt, daß er die Beobachtungen hinsichtlich Wunden gemacht hat und das kann sie doch nur aus Aufzeichnungen in den Ermittlungsakten gewußt haben ?
Hi Frank, well CK had stipulated not much in order not to sacrifice herself. No recall about the participants who had dictated her the timeline. No recall about any injuries. No recall any contradictions or reasons to write the timeline. Wow. She had a good attourney.
Ask yourself why Massie didn't recall any injuries although she had a big picture as you said? She knew that the Haysoms did expect the couple on that weekend. I am pretty sure she was going to talk about that fact and that she had asked Haysom about it, but was cut off bei Updike's objection during the cross examination by Neaton.
Bruno,
It's possible that Jens was not present when Elizabeth dictated to Christine step by step what they had been doing in Washington DC over that weekend. She stipulated that she could not recall.
Bruno,
The spare key incident happened much earlier. Elizabeth and Jens had rented a car and gone to her parent's house while they were away. My point is only that is a moment when Mrs. Massie said something which suggests that she realized that Jens was a part of the picture.
Hey Frank, if you are talking about Annie Massie being asked for a spare key for the Haysom's house by Jens Soering, you have to prove it. This would be an important statement Updike wouldn't have missed in court. As Massie didn't make any statement like this it should be nonsense. The only thing which make sense is that both wanted to be sure not to get any visit by anybody while slaughtering the Haysoms and cleaning the crime scene. Therefore we have calls to jewel hops for achieving money in DC (don't buy knives with Klaus Soering's credit card) like Haysom stated, but also to doublecheck the Haysoms for staying at Home to be sure the victims are at Loose Chippings. The long distance call didn't went to Beth. That was alibi fiction. It went to the Haysoms. To ask for a spare key is nonsense as Soering's girlfriend has her own one.
I can't remember who told me this in Lynchburg, but there was another man at the Haysom funeral service reception on Easter Sunday, 1985, who also noticed Soering's bruise. He may have also noticed the fingers. This man had been at one point a football referee and had actually been a ref at some very important Big Ten games. There is a little bit more to this question of Soering's bruise than we know. I mean by this that I believe that at least two men there were at some point scrutinizing Soering and there could have been others. I don't know if they shared conclusions or not. They might have. And both men knew sports injuries. In 1989, before Soering was returned, I paid a cold call to this man's residence in Lynchburg, which was the Westminster- Canterbury, and learned that he had died some weeks or months before. I don't know if he was even involved in any way as a witness, or potential witness. Soering had not gone unnoticed. And he would have noticed Mrs. Massie's comments as she registered on him when he went to get the spare key from her on one of his at least two visits to the Haysom's home before he murdered them there. She was warned about him by police, told to be very careful. Soering thought that she was a witch. That she had been there.
Some people were terrified of him. They told me in no uncertain terms.
What do you say about Soering connecting you to his famous ex supporter and all his personal case files . You in the role of her receiver? Well, old story.
Scars? There are two. Haysom testified that she had bandaged Soering after returning to the hotel. But she made a 50% fault in her recollection. She got one finger wrong. The scars that Soering had showed the jury in 1990 were on the index and the little finger of left hand. Soering is righthanded. So the only way of producing selfinflicted wounds would be to stab by holding the knife with both hands slipping over the blade. But the scars Soering referred to are not typical cut scars as they are not plain!
I am very convinced that Soering had learned what to use by studying "Soldier of Fortune". So loosing his blood at the crime scene could also be a result by a scratch of a defensive victim.
The reason why Haysom had to give her blood and footprints in late September was her suspicious behaviour reported by Howard Haysom towards Gardner.
- returning to the crime scene and cleaning the frontdoor/doorhandle
- using unemotional language "Pups brain" in a silly way
- comparison of her food towards a bloody sockprint on the floor
Gardner had to wait for her as she had been on holiday in Europe together with Soering
The results of her footprints were finished in November 85 as they were on the run for weeks, already. If Gardner had connected Baker's report and her shoesize maybe he would had been much faster after listening to her story for the extra miles. Anyway the big questions concerning the testimony of Harrington about bandages on Soering's hand
are:
- there is no explanation for Kim loosing her recollection in her stipulation
- there is no explanation why Howard Haysom nor Annie Massie didn't make any statements about bandages
- there is no explanation why Sheriff Wells had seen them on the funeral, but they weren't documented in the files
- there is no explanation for loosing a lot of blood while driving to the dumpster, that could not been detected - well Wright tried to give theories about that, but none had convinced me, by knowing how luminol does work (so does Reid). So my theory is, there was no meal for Soering, no dumpster, no bloodloss in car, only a small scratch: was this covered on the funeral....maybe