Elizabeth Haysom's Trial and Sentencing, Part I

Excerpts from her 1987 trial

Greetings readers. In the next few days, I will be posting excerpts from the transcript of the trial and sentencing of Elizabeth Haysom in Bedford County, Virginia in 1987. I selected these excerpts for their general interest and their relevance to the subject of this blog, the case of Jens Söring.

Introduction and Context

Shortly after she and Jens Söring confessed to their respective roles in the murders of Derek and Nancy Haysom in June 1986, Elizabeth Haysom was charged with being an accomplice to capital murder in Bedford County, Virginia. Because the police had no evidence she personally participated in the murders of her parents, the charges against her could not have been punished by a death sentence.

In Autumn of 1986, Elizabeth Haysom decided that she would agree to be extradited to Virginia without challenging that decision. She communicated this decision in a letter to Jens Söring in December of 1986. As you will see below, she testified that this decision alarmed him.

Elizabeth Haysom was in fact extradited to Virginia in May 1987. Shortly after arriving, she gave several long interviews to Bedford County Sheriff’s Deputy Ricky Gardner. These were a kind of “de-briefing” in which she gave further details about her involvement in the murders of her parents and her interactions with Jens Söring. Some of these interviews were recorded.

The Bedford County Circuit Court held a hearing on Haysom’s case on August 24 and 25, 1987. In this hearing, Haysom pleaded guilty to the crime of being accessory before the fact to first-degree murder. She was represented at this hearing by her lawyer Hugh J.M. Jones, III. Both Jones and District Attorney Jim Updike stated that there was no agreement between them as to the sentence Ms. Haysom should receive. The purpose of the hearing on the 24th and 25th was to demonstrate to the court that there was adequate evidence to support Haysom’s guilty pleas. No jury was present, since the decision whether to accept a guilty plea is for the judge alone.

Elizabeth Haysom testified that she fully understood that she was giving up her right to a trial and to an appeal. She also understood that by pleading guilty without a deal, she would be allowing the judge to fix her sentence at his sole discretion. He could sentence her to between 20 years and life in prison for each count of accessory to murder. She stated she understood this. On 24 and 25 August, 1987, Jim Updike introduced testimony from Ricky Gardner and Terry Wright establishing the basic facts of the case. After Haysom’s guilty plea was accepted, a punishment hearing was scheduled for October 5, 1987. The punishment hearing was not conducted in front of a jury. The sole question during this hearing was what punishment Haysom should receive. Haysom took the stand in her own defense.

During her testimony at the punishment hearing, Haysom attempted a balancing act. She did take responsibility for her role in the crime, and expressed remorse at having played a key role in the death of her parents. However, she sought to minimize her culpability in four ways: (1) She claimed to have been abused in some way by her mother; (2) she claimed that she had always loved her parents, and that her remarks about their deaths were mere fantasies; (3) she downplayed her advance knowledge of Söring’s plans, making it seem as if she had been surprised that he actually killed her parents (thus downplaying her guilty knowledge in advance of the crime); and (4) she claimed to have spent her time in Washington, D.C. buying and using drugs, to the extent she was barely conscious of what was happening.

Prosecutor Updike clearly saw her testimony as an attempt to cultivate sympathy and downplay her role in the crime. He subjected her to a long and punishing cross-examination in which he repeatedly pointed out how well her parents had treated her and how her attempts to claim ignorance of what Jens Söring was going to do were misleading. He also forced Haysom to admit she had lied to Söring to try to manipulate him. Haysom was eventually sentenced to two 45-year prison terms for her role in the deaths of her parents.

She later testified at Jens Söring’s 1990 murder trial. At that trial, her testimony differed in some respects from her testimony in 1987 — in particular, she admitted that she had indeed known that Söring planned to confront and likely kill her parents, and that she approved of this plan. She was cross-examined at length during Jens Söring’s trials about the differences between her testimony in 1987 and her testimony in 1990, and these discrepancies remain a key feature of Team Söring’s story of the case. They argue that because Elizabeth changed some parts of her story — which is true — she cannot be trusted as to anything she says about the case. I leave it to you to judge whether that blanket dismissal is justified. I would also suggest that Jens Söring is hardly in a position to criticize someone for making misleading statements, whether in or out of court.

These excerpts are all taken from the verbatim trial transcript of the 1987 trial, which, like all trial transcripts in American criminal trials, is a public record available to anyone willing to pay the court reporter to have the transcript created.

Key points:

1. After Jens Söring murdered Derek and Nancy Haysom, he expressed no remorse to Elizabeth Haysom. In fact, she stated, he seemed proud of the act, and began to think of killing as a “nice occupation”, and thought about becoming a hit man (“hire to kill”).

2. After his interview with Ricky Gardner on October 6, 1986, Söring formed a plan to kill Ricky Gardner, whose home address he had discovered. Haysom took this threat so seriously that she feigned a medical crisis (brain tumor) to distract Söring.

3. According to Haysom, Söring also mused about killing his own parents, and about killing Howard Haysom.

4. Söring was extremely concerned about money, asked Haysom for money, and believed that he and Haysom would somehow profit from the murders of the Haysoms — a belief she initially encouraged. It later emerged that Haysom would not inherit any large sum from the estate of Derek and Nancy Haysom — but would only be beneficiary of a trust fund set up to finance her education.

5. During their flight from the law in late 1985 and early 1986, Söring had acquired copies of “Soldier of Fortune” magazine, a publication for mercenaries and hit men. Soldier of Fortune was sued successfully by families of persons who had been murdered by hit men who had advertised their services in the magazine. Copies of “Soldier of Fortune” were in fact found in the search of Jens Söring’s papers in London in 1986.

6. Söring was alarmed at Haysom’s decision to agree to extradition in December 1986, calling her a “bloody idiot”. During a subsequent joint court hearing, he engaged in some kind of outburst directed at Haysom, and as a result appeared in later court appearances handcuffed to a warden.

Trial excerpts

Excerpts from the trial Commonwealth of Virginia v. Elizabeth Roxanne Haysom, Bedford County Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Virginia, August and October, 1987. Page numbers provided in parentheses after quotations. Edited slightly for clarity, explanatory remarks in brackets.

Excerpts of Guilty Plea Hearing of Elizabeth Roxanne Haysom, 24 August 1987:

Statement to the Court by James Updike, Commonwealth’s Attorney, Bedford County, Virginia:

MR. UPDIKE: Thank you, Your Honor. And Your Honor, we appreciate the Court allowing us the opportunity to present our evidence, because we do feel that under the nature of--the circumstances I should say, of this case and the nature of the offenses, that it is a situation where there needs to be a thorough presentation of the evidence, we're quite prepared to do that here today.

We would also like to emphasize that this is a plea in which there are no plea agreements, there have been no negotiations on the part of me or my office with the defendant or her counsel. So at the appropriate time the Court of course will have the obligation and responsibility of fixing punishment in this matter without any agreements, and for that reason we feel that a thorough presentation of the evidence would be necessary to hopefully assist the Court in making that decision.

(14)

It has been our intention throughout, from the time that I first drew the indictments last June and presented them to the Grand Jury, that our evidence would be based upon the theory in this matter against Elizabeth Roxanne Haysom that she was indeed an accessory before the fact.

(17)

We would like to point out that there was one gentleman at the memorial service by the name of Mr. Don Harrington who observed Jens Soering, the co-defendant, at the memorial service. He had come down from Charlottesville with Elizabeth Haysom and another friend. He did observe that there was an injury to Soering's left cheek.

Mr. Harrington would testify that he had done some boxing himself, this being Mr. Harrington in his earlier days, and his immediate response or thought to himself was someone caught this man with a right cross.

We would like to emphasize by referring back to the autopsy report that the right hand of Mr. Haysom did have an abrasion on the right knuckle.

We would also have Mr. Harrington testify that he observed one, possibly two fingers on Jens Soering, this being the left hand, and that Soering was wearing at the memorial service, this being April 7th of '85, a band-aid or some type of dressing of that nature.

(32)

I don't know exactly how to categorize their exact wealth because I don't know that, but there was quite a bit  of money there.

(42)

Direct Examination of Detective Constable Terry Wright, London Metropolitan Police:

A Yes, sir. He was asked whether he consented [to a search of Söring and Haysom’s London apartment]. In fact if he hadn't consented, he wouldn't have told us where the address was and we'd have had no way of knowing where it was. But he also endorsed the custody record, his custody record, not this particular one, with his authority for us to search that address.

Direct Examination of Ricky Gardner, Bedford County, Virginia Sheriff’s Office:

Q   If you would read that please.

A   [Reading from a statement from] Elizabeth Haysom: "I was extremely upset because I hadn't really heard from various people, and pointed out to her that yeah, there are many people who would say that I made Jens kill my parents, or I caused him to kill my parents. And that’s very possibly true, but after, after he had done it, he thought that killing people was quite a nice occupation. And I said to him, I think my exact words were something along the line that his parents wouldn't be giving me such a hard time if the knew I prevented him from doing them as he had done my parents.

And because I'm older than he is and more experienced, whatever, uh, and because he is so innocent and charming and well spoken and has this beautiful past and I have this horrible past and the rest of it, people see me as the manipulator, and I say that's quite possibly true at one stage. The roles quickly reversed, um, after.

We had some really different feelings and he wanted to kill Howard, he disliked Howard."

Question [from Ricky Gardner]: "So he talked of killing Howard."

Response: "Yes."

Q   [from Jim Updike to Ricky Gardner, who is reading from a statement given by Elizabeth Haysom] Okay, thank you. Then just continuing very quickly if I could go through this, the bottom of Page Thirty-Seven, going to the top of Page Thirty-Eight, is Ms. Haysom indicating there that there was a drastic change in Jens Soering after the murders?

A   Yes, sir.

Q   And coming on down until almost the middle of the page, she indicates that after they left Virginia, that he took control, all I can really say is he really took control.

A   Yes, sir.

Q   I think there are just a very few more questions I'd like to ask you, but on Page Forty-Six, you put the specific question to Ms. Haysom why are your parents dead, do you see? Begin reading her response there at that question if you would, please. Let me ask you this--

A   "Let me ask you this point blank: Why are your parents dead?"

Response: (Long pause) "That's a very difficult question. Uh, they're dead because--see the thing with that is my reasons that I see now may be different from the reasons I had then, uh. And at one time they were going to separate Jens and myself, they were making the arrangements to leave Virginia."

Question: "They were making arrangements for you to leave Virginia or them to leave Virginia?"

Response: "All of us."

Question: "And go where?" "I don't know, but they talked about me going back to Canada. In Halifax they put the house up for sale. And at that point I could not bear the thought of being separated from--"

(27-29)

Q   And the tape ended at that point, is that

A   End of the tape side.

Q   But on the next page she just continued that thought with she could not stand the thought of being separated from Jens. But she states, but there's a lot more to the story.

A   Yes, sir.

(27-30)…

Q   Page Sixty-Seven, the business that we may have heard in the diary referring to the tumor. She laughed about that and said no, she didn't have a tumor a she has some explanation here about that. But there was nothing to the tumor business, was there?

A No, sir, there wasn't.

(30)

25 August 1987

Direct Examination of Detective Inspector Kenneth Beever, London Metropolitan Police:

Q   And directing your attention back to your testimony yesterday about the apartment in London where they lived and where this correspondence was seized, did you also find some magazines there?

A   Yes, we did, sir.

Q   And were any of those magazines entitled "Soldier of Fortune"?

A   Yes, one magazine.

Q   And I'm showing you here a copy of a page from a magazine; do you recognize that?

A   Yes, I do, sir.

Q   And can you tell us what that is?

A   It's an advertisement inside the magazine for a butterfly knife, full butterfly knives.

Q   And is that a copy of the page of the magazine that you found in the apartment?

(9)

Cross-examination of Ricky Gardner by Grant Jones

Q   And it’s--for a little background, is "Soldier of Fortune Magazine" a type of mercenary type of publication that advertises exotic weaponry?

A   I'm not that familiar with it, but I believe it's along those lines, yes, sir.

Q   And in fact that shows a butterfly knife or what appears to be a butterfly knife and it's advertised butterfly knife for mail order.

A   Yes, sir.

(50)

Q   Investigator Gardner, you also I believe took an oral statement from Ms. Haysom on May the 11th [1987], is that right?

A   Yes, sir, she requested that it not be put on tape.

Q   And she wanted to talk to you?

A   Yes, sir.

Q   And did she tell you that she did not want a tape made of that statement because of her continuing fear of Jens Soering?

A   I think it was something to that effect, yes, sir.

(56-57)

A   "Yes. I mean he makes me feel guilty for telling the truth. He makes me feel like I'm betraying him because I'm telling the truth. I don't know what he wants from me. I mean it's a horrible position to be in, but, uh, he wants me to carry on lying and to lie for him because I love him. And I'm not prepared to do that anymore because the whole thing is so ghastly and so wrong, and I've betrayed so many people and I feel so lousy about that. And now I feel completely lousy about that as well, you know."

(61)

Q   During that particular conversation and more particular on May the 11th when you interviewed her and Investigator Huddleston was present, was she physically shaking when she was talking to you about Jens Soering? Not – was she trembling?

A   She was nervous, yes, sir.

Q   Trembling?

A   Yes, sir.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you very much.

(64)

Sentencing hearing, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Elizabeth Roxanne Haysom, 5 October 1987

Direct examination of Ricky Gardner by Elizabeth Haysom’s lawyer Hugh J.M. Jones, III:

Q   Investigator Gardner, I believe that during the testimony at the previous hearing it came out that there was discovered in the flat or apartment which Ms. Haysom and Mr. Soering resided several issues of "Soldier of Fortune" magazine isn't that correct?

A   Yes, sir.

Q   And it was also introduced at that hearing a picture, a photograph, of an ad for a butterfly knife,

isn't that correct?

(5)

Direct Examination of Elizabeth Haysom

Q   Now why didn't you read this thing that Jens wrote and gave to you after you got back from Christmas break [The reference is to the 40-page letter Söring sent to Haysom after Christmas 1984, which played a significant part at his 1990 murder trial]?

A   Well I read--as I say, I read a number of pages and the first few pages anyway, it was very difficult reading and very boring, very dull and very strange.

Q   You said earlier you gave it back to him; why did you give it back to him at the--

A   Well he asked for it back, he wanted it back from me.

(136)

A   I still tried to escape from him from time to time, I still tried to acquire space and there were arguments with my roommate about it. But we did become increasingly obsessed with one another.

Q   In February of 1985, did he make a comment to you in your room I believe or in a room about your parents?

A   Yes, he did.

Q   What did he say?

A   He walked into the room and he said I could blow their bloody heads off.

Q   What prompted that?

A   I'm not sure. It may have been my parents were sending me out to Colorado to ski when I had planned stay at the University of Virginia and work with Jens on h movie, and he didn't want me to go out to Colorado. And I'm not sure if it was that, I don't really know.

I was in my room, I was reading. He walked in, he said--and when he said it, at the moment that he said it it was definitely apparent that he was serious. He was angry and he meant what he was saying.

THE COURT: I'm not sure to whom this was directed, whether the statement was made to him. I'm the one who's supposed to hear it and I've got to hear it. This was one month before, roughly a month before the murders, and I want to hear it.

BY MR. JONES:  (continuing)

Q   February of 1985. Where were you when that statement was made?

A   I was in my room at UVA in Watson Dorm. I was working, reading some text.

Q   Were you expecting Jens?

A   Not that I recall, no.

Q   Did he appear?

A   Yes, he did. He strode into the room and he blurted this comment out, I could blow their bloody heads off.

THE COURT: Excuse me now, is he talking about himself as you perceived it?

THE WITNESS: He said to me, I could blow their bloody heads off.

BY MR. JONES:  (continuing)

Q   Who is I?

A   Jens.

Q   And again I ask you what--do you know what would have prompted him to have made that statement to you at that particular point in time?

A   I'm not sure what specifically prompted it. I know there was some hostility and anger about my trip to Colorado which was coming up because we had planned to stay at UVA together and I was to help him work on his movie. But I don't know specifically why he came steaming into the room like that, no.

Q   How did you respond at that time to what he said?

A   At that particular instant I took him seriously. I, you know, said to him that's outrageous, that's terrible, how could you think something like that, and then just after that let it slide.

Q   How long did he stay in your room on that occasion? How long did you talk after the statement was made?

A   Perhaps for half an hour or so.

Q   What was his state of mind when he left the room?

A   I don't recall, I'm sorry.

Q   But you attempted to calm him down?

A   Yes.

Q   And what are your thoughts now in the perspective that you have on that statement having been made by him?

A   I think--well he meant it at the time and he--I didn't realize how serious he was I guess. And today I feel extremely responsible that I didn't follow up on what he had said, that I didn't do something. I don't know quite what, professional counseling, perhaps go to the police, perhaps talk to my parents.

But it seems it was--it's become more and more apparent to me as I have gone over more and more of Jens' correspondence to other people that he was not thinking the same way I was thinking. I was indulging in some grotesque, childish fantasies, I was feeling hate and resentment and frustration, but I wasn't thinking about murder. And it seems that he was.

Q   At the time that statement was made, or following that statement, did you say or do anything to encourage him down that road?

A   Not consciously, no.

(141-144)

A   The threats were made around about the time, I think it was after the funeral or just before the funeral. As I said, I had these confrontations with him about spending time with my family and he threatened to turn himself in and make sure that I went down with him. threatened to kill himself and leave a message to convict me. He threatened leaving me, which was the terrible thing. He threatened lots of different things.

(178)

Q   What's the message in that footnote? You don't have to read it, just tell us what the message is that he's conveying.

A   He says that he's destroyed his rather nasty letter in reply to this letter.

Q   Did he have a habit of destroying things that were--you know -- might be adverse to him?

A   He certainly--whenever he wrote me a letter, he always requested that he got it back again. He asked for his letters back and he did destroy a number of them.

Q   And what were you trying to convey to Jens in taking a look at that letter of April 18th [1985]? What were you trying to convey to him in that letter?

A   Well as I said earlier, he had been threatening, making threatening statements about what he was going to do about his and my position if I didn't spend more time with him and I'm responding to that and I'm trying to make him even more rational about it. I'm trying to make him understand that it' no good if he feels that I'm only with him because I have to be with him; it would be much better for him to realize that I'm with him because I love him and not because I'm terrified.

Q   Did you complete your spring semester at Virginia that spring?

A   Yes I did, sir.

Q   And did you do some traveling that summer?

A   Yes I did, sir.

Q   And you and Jens took a trip to Europe.

A   Yes, we did.

(184-185)

Q   And then you returned to Charlottesville in the fall for the next semester.

A   Yes, we did.

Q   And you ended up leaving Charlottesville in October of 1985.

A   Yes, sir.

Q   During that time frame, what was Jen's attitude towards what had happened?

A   His attitude towards what had happened varied tremendously from--depending on the circumstances of the investigation really. His relationship with me changed dramatically and that process continued after we left.

Q   What do you mean the relationship with you changed dramatically?

A   Well he--he made it very clear that there was no point in me thinking about trying to tell somebody about what had happened. Although I have to admit that at that time I was not thinking about it. I loved him, I needed him and I just wanted to blank out what he had done But he was very obsessed with the notion that I might speak to somebody. And he would say that if he went down I would go with him.

There were other times when he thought it was the best thing he'd ever done, he was proud of it, he was--he thought it was--he was some sort of hero. I believe he describes himself in one of his letters as a hero, accomplishing this thing. And in those moments he would say--he would view that he had done the entire thing by himself, plotted it, carried it out, outwitted the police. He thought he was incredibly smart for having outwitted Investigator Gardner.

Q   Why did you and Jens leave in October of '85?

A   Because Investigator Gardner and Investigator Reid had requested blood samples from Jens.

Q   He was getting scared.

A   Yes. And as I say, his attitude towards what happened changed as outside--as the investigation was progressing. And when he discovered that Investigator Gardner wasn't as stupid as he thought he was and that he couldn't just talk his way out of a situation as serious as this.

(186-87)

[After Söring fled from Virginia on 13 October 1985] He did phone from I believe it was Newark in New Jersey and he told me that he had my letters, these letters which you have before you, which Mr. Updike has, and that he would send them to the police and they would arrest me for them, or whatever. I mean I didn't know anything about the law. All he said is that they had some bad things in them and that he had them and he was going to try and use them in some way.

As I say, he did do that [i.e., threatened to use the letters] but I don't want to exaggerate the importance of it. I left of my own free will, I chose to leave and I did have a choice. And you know, when it came down to it I made the wrong one.

(189)

A   [Elizabeth Haysom reads from joint travel diary] Okay, let's see, on October the 7th, Monday. Elizabeth discovered she has a brain tumor. Jens gets call and sends in travel passport. Well on October the 7th I did not have a brain tumor.

Q   Why did something about the brain tumor come up, why do you even mention it?

A   Because on October the 5th or October the 6th, I can't be sure, Jens came down to Bedford and talked to Officers Reid and Gardner, and he had an interview with them and they wanted his physical forensic evidence, his fingerprints and his blood and everything.

And when he came back from Bedford, he felt threatened by Investigator Gardner, he felt that he knew in some sort of way what he had done. And he plotted, devised a plot to kill Investigator Gardner at his home and I was to provide his alibi in Charlottesville. And so there wasn't any point in reasoning with Jens about killing people, it was bad, you shouldn't kill people. He had killed people and I wasn't in a position to moralize to him.

So I devised a brain tumor. I went to the hospital--excuse me, I went to student health on October the 7th, I went to see a doctor, I spent some time there. I came back, told Jens I had been diagnosed as having a brain tumor. And I believe on the following day it says I have it out and that's why I provided an alibi.

Q   So that was your means that you used to avoid getting involved in that.

A   Yes.

Q   Did you later tell Ricky Gardner about, you know, the truth?

A   Yes, I did.

(191-193)

A   [Explaining how she convinced Söring to leave the USA before she did]…Because of his attraction to violence and his interest in things like Soldier of Fortune Magazine  and his interest in hire for kill, whatever, it was an appropriate way to manipulate him to leave the country ahead of me. So I told him that I could get in contact with this fictional person, Rover, who was a member of the IRA and that I could get passports, money, whatever, and that I would go to England and I would do that. Of course that didn't happen and it's rubbish.

Q   It was to get him to leave before [you did].

A   Yes. I mean he was extremely suspicious of some of the things that I was doing and he--I was the only sort of story that he would buy because he liked those kinds of things. He was interested and excited by the idea that his girlfriend might be involved in something like this.

(194)

A   What I discovered was that I was right, Jens was manipulating me, he was using me. But it was more than that. He knew exactly, precisely what he was doing. It wasn't--it's not as if he even believes what he says to me. He states very plainly how to manipulate me, how he feels. And then in letters at a similar time, he does those manipulations. He knew what he was doing in his manipulations, it was deliberate. And my feeling now is that, you know, on top of everything else I am a first class idiot.

(200)

A   The 11th of December, 1986.

Q   And in that letter, do you indicate that you do not want to contest extradition and that you intend to plead guilty?

A   Yes, sir.

Q   And how did Jens respond to that?

A   If I remember correctly, [in] the letter [what] he said was Elizabeth don't be a bloody idiot.

(203)

A   Well, sir, I was giving my deposition which Mr. Updike provided the English authorities and which I had to have a copy of, and in the deposition there were these photocopies of my parents. And I lived with those photographs, they were in my cell, they were on my person, they were with me wherever I went and they were in my mind's eye the whole time as well.

And as far as I was concerned absolutely nothing, nothing, could justify what he had done, what I had done, it just became irrelevant anymore what actually -- the details of who did what to whom.

He had butchered my parents. It was there sitting in front of me, it wasn't just words, it was there. And I was in some way, shape or form part of that, responsible for it. And I had covered up for him, covered up. And not only covered up but broken all trust and loyalty and everything. And I had to do some serious thinking where I was going and how--there was just no way, absolutely no way, no matter what I felt specifically for Jens, there was no way I could continue to have a relationship with him or to pander to his whims or needs.

(204)

Q   Now as Jens perceived this change in you, how did the tone of his letters become?

A   He became extremely hostile and he became-- well he says, he says I'm--there's something here--he says I'm--I feel suspicious of you, I feel abandoned by you. He tells me that I'm abandoning myself legally and by abandoning myself I'm abandoning him. By abandoning him legally, I'm abandoning our love and without our love I'm nothing. He--it's a more obvious continuation of his previous manipulation.

(206)

THE COURT: You've been getting phone calls from the German Embassy at the jail here?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: What has been the nature of the calls?

THE WITNESS: They say things like Jens loves me, Jens needs me, I'm responsible for his life, his life's in my hands. They say things like they fear for my life, that time is running out for me, that I should be quiet in thought and word and deed, to quote. I have letters to that effect as well.

(208)

Q   Did money or inheritance have anything to do with the death of your parents?

A   No, sir.

Q   What was Jens' position as far as money was concerned?

A   He loved it, it was very important to him, it represented security to him and he could never get enough of it. And he also describes in several of his letters that as far as he's concerned, the best way to get money is the easiest way which is to steal it or just have people give it to you.

(212)

Q   Did Jens put any pressure on you to contest it [i.e., for Elizabeth Haysom to contest her extradition to Virginia]?

A   Yes, he did.

Q   And again, was that through his letters to you?

A   Yes, through his letters and also at an appearance in February in court he made a scene about it. And after that he was handcuffed in court with me and kept away from me because of his outbreak.

Q   And that first statement that you made to Mr. Gardner at that time was essentially the same as the-- the incriminating part of it, you know, the alibi and that sort of thing--was essentially the same as what you told him in London.

A   Yes, I reiterated to him what I had said before and I emphasized to him that I had done those things to create an alibi that it was--I think I said a number of times it was premeditated.

Q   And you emphasized the next day more than you had before the element of premeditation.

A   Yes.

Q   And why were you emphasizing that to Investigator Gardner at that time?

A   Well like I say, I wasn't very--I didn't really have any idea about the law or charges of things and I thought that if I was convicted of being an accessory before the fact that it would only make sense that Jens would have to be convicted of first degree murder or premeditation or whatever it is that he's charged with. Because I am stating that lam an accessory and admitting to being an accessory.

And so I thought that if I emphasized and made it quite clear that there was an element of premeditation there, because I knew the line of Jens' defense. So I wanted to make that quite clear to Investigator Gardner because I want Jens to come back here and I want him to stand trial.

Q   At that--at May the 8th when you made that statement to Gardner, were you still protecting Jens?

A   No, I wasn't protecting him, I was nervous of him. I was scared of things that I might say, he would get copies of my statements as a packet of depositions as I got his statements when I was in England. I had decided to plead guilty when I arrived here, I had decided to plead guilty before I came. I wanted to make sure that Jens was convicted. So as I say, I thought that if I was found guilty that he would have to be found guilty, too.

(213-215)

Q   What's your attitude towards Jens at the moment?

A   I want him to be brought to justice.

Q   You're willing to cooperate with the prosecution in that regard?

A   Absolutely.

Q   If called upon by the prosecution to testify, would you do it?

A   Yes.

Q   Would you be afraid to do it?

A   Yes, sir.

Q   Why?

A   Well I'm--

Q   I don't want you to reiterate; because of what you've already told us about the threats by Jens?

A   Yes.

(216)