Andrew, it is much more complex than to play an expert of the case, who is calling himself the only expert with the background of an attourney and just hiding argumentative behind the outcome and the sentences of the two trials. You know that Haysom didn't have to walk through a trial in front of a jury, cause there were no judge or state attourney who wanted to prove her involvement at the crime scene. You should know that according to all signs at the crime scene and around it, that this would had been possible, but Updike prefer to use her statements as his key witness in order to line up his double murder case. Of course had she changed her story around key statements in front of the police, the media, the court in 87 and 90. It is very interesting that on the 8th of June in 1986 there was no Soering who also wanted to kill Gardner or his Grandma or blow off her parents' head off. That metamorphosis should last after she took the deal to blame him for receiving an early chance for paraole. Yes she wanted him to get the same punishment according to the i d e n t i c a l guilt. You should tell the story right but you are only focused on the media Soering. Yes there are some hater which you will catch with your blog stories. But this is a typical Bonnie and Clyde Story. Even if the killing of Gardner might be something real, it could be her who brought up the idea and they would also do it together. But the story itself sounds as much ridiculous as the fabricated brain tumor and even more the reason to invent it. This is typical Haysom, so to protect Gardner. Well Mr Hammel, I guess you feel too much pity or love for her, or you hate him too much. But you're not able to prove where she was on the murder night. Well the story clearly sums it up - the deed clearly points to a "Team work deed".
Once again Andrew Hammel built up his case against Soering by cherry picking and interpretating the documents which had fallen "out of the sky" to him. The introduction is just a joke for the fact that an Ex attorney turns out to act like a storyteller. Joke 1. The cops had no evidence against her. Joke 2 And as she didn't participate in the act of killing, she couldn't be punished with the death sentence. Joke 3. It was Soering who had thousands of dollars during an university term also secured by his daddy's credit card. It was Haysom lying about the schools she visited, the flats she owns and the heritage her family has. All these lies were realized by Neaton in 1990. Hammel and Wright make one big error in this whole case. Their case is built up on her statements. They should publish all of Haysom's statements, especially crossexamined by Neaton. Then you realize how a pathological lier lies to deceive and trying to save her own a... But Andrew Hammel shout really be able to realize where her desire to inriminate Soering come from, cause it's so obvious.
There is one very interesting question. Haysom denied to have asked Beever on the 8th of June, if Soering had confessed to the murders. So who was the liar here? Make your choice.
Ich frage mich nur, in wieweit man die Aussagen von Elisabeth Haysom als wahrheitsgetreu bewerten kann. Sie wollte Söring verurteilt sehen. Hat sie dazu in den Verhören die Wahrheit gesagt oder die Tatsachen "ausgestaltet"? Wer hat die Idee zur Ermordung der Haysoms letzendlich forciert? Es ist schwer vorstellbar, dass EH während der Zeit vor den Morden passiv geblieben ist und ihr die Kontrolle über den manischen JS einfach entglitten ist. Hat JS auf Geheiß von EH gehandelt oder war er die treibende Kraft bei der Umsetzung der Morde, mit welchem Motiv auch immer? Ich denke darüber nach.
Andrew, it is much more complex than to play an expert of the case, who is calling himself the only expert with the background of an attourney and just hiding argumentative behind the outcome and the sentences of the two trials. You know that Haysom didn't have to walk through a trial in front of a jury, cause there were no judge or state attourney who wanted to prove her involvement at the crime scene. You should know that according to all signs at the crime scene and around it, that this would had been possible, but Updike prefer to use her statements as his key witness in order to line up his double murder case. Of course had she changed her story around key statements in front of the police, the media, the court in 87 and 90. It is very interesting that on the 8th of June in 1986 there was no Soering who also wanted to kill Gardner or his Grandma or blow off her parents' head off. That metamorphosis should last after she took the deal to blame him for receiving an early chance for paraole. Yes she wanted him to get the same punishment according to the i d e n t i c a l guilt. You should tell the story right but you are only focused on the media Soering. Yes there are some hater which you will catch with your blog stories. But this is a typical Bonnie and Clyde Story. Even if the killing of Gardner might be something real, it could be her who brought up the idea and they would also do it together. But the story itself sounds as much ridiculous as the fabricated brain tumor and even more the reason to invent it. This is typical Haysom, so to protect Gardner. Well Mr Hammel, I guess you feel too much pity or love for her, or you hate him too much. But you're not able to prove where she was on the murder night. Well the story clearly sums it up - the deed clearly points to a "Team work deed".
Once again Andrew Hammel built up his case against Soering by cherry picking and interpretating the documents which had fallen "out of the sky" to him. The introduction is just a joke for the fact that an Ex attorney turns out to act like a storyteller. Joke 1. The cops had no evidence against her. Joke 2 And as she didn't participate in the act of killing, she couldn't be punished with the death sentence. Joke 3. It was Soering who had thousands of dollars during an university term also secured by his daddy's credit card. It was Haysom lying about the schools she visited, the flats she owns and the heritage her family has. All these lies were realized by Neaton in 1990. Hammel and Wright make one big error in this whole case. Their case is built up on her statements. They should publish all of Haysom's statements, especially crossexamined by Neaton. Then you realize how a pathological lier lies to deceive and trying to save her own a... But Andrew Hammel shout really be able to realize where her desire to inriminate Soering come from, cause it's so obvious.
There is one very interesting question. Haysom denied to have asked Beever on the 8th of June, if Soering had confessed to the murders. So who was the liar here? Make your choice.
Ich frage mich nur, in wieweit man die Aussagen von Elisabeth Haysom als wahrheitsgetreu bewerten kann. Sie wollte Söring verurteilt sehen. Hat sie dazu in den Verhören die Wahrheit gesagt oder die Tatsachen "ausgestaltet"? Wer hat die Idee zur Ermordung der Haysoms letzendlich forciert? Es ist schwer vorstellbar, dass EH während der Zeit vor den Morden passiv geblieben ist und ihr die Kontrolle über den manischen JS einfach entglitten ist. Hat JS auf Geheiß von EH gehandelt oder war er die treibende Kraft bei der Umsetzung der Morde, mit welchem Motiv auch immer? Ich denke darüber nach.