German Lawyer Burkhard Benecken Becomes Söring's Latest "Useful Idiot": Part II

Benecken's book rehashes the stale arguments, but adds a twist.

Benecken’s Book

A few weeks ago, we took a look at Burkhard Benecken, the … colorful … German lawyer who recently wrote a book discussing the Söring case. Benecken’s book surveys German cases which Benecken believes are miscarriages of justice. He uses Jens Söring’s case to illustrate legal errors such as prosecutorial misconduct, “junk science”, and false confessions. Benecken jabs at the U.S. justice system to flatter the prejudices of his readers.

However, to his credit, he does something few German lawyers or journalists do: He goes after the German criminal-justice system: chumminess (Kantinensolidarität) between prosecutors and judges, excess reliance on expert reports, inadequate documentation of trials, meager pay for court-appointed lawyers, and more. If you’re interested in these things, as I am, don’t buy Benecken’s book. At least, not at first. There’s a much better book out there on these subjects by a real journalist: Ronen Steinke’s Vor dem Gesetz sind nicht alle gleich: Die neue Klassenjustiz (Not all are Equal before the Law: The New Class Justice).

Steinke’s book is a well-documented but lively portrayal of the shortcomings of Germany’s justice system, especially in the way it handles poor people. Strong recommendation. Benecken’s book is nowhere near Steinke’s league because, for instance, Benecken holds up Jens Söring’s case as a miscarriage of justice. There is no evidence Benecken ever studied the record of Söring’s the case; he seems to have just chatted with Söring, made some notes, and then reprinted them in the book without any independent verification.

In other words, he acted as Söring’s useful idiot. All told, Benecken devotes about 20 pages or so to Söring’s case. He hits points which are so familiar that I’ll just summarize them along with an explanation of why they’re wrong:

• Söring thought he had diplomatic immunity. (No he didn’t; he admitted in a 6 October 1985 police interview that he knew he had no immunity.)

• The 21-day rule prevented him from introducing Elizabeth’s footprint into evidence. (Elizabeth’s footprint was admitted into evidence — by the prosecution, no less.)

• Söring was denied access to his lawyer during his June 1986 interrogations. (He never requested a lawyer be present, whenever he told detectives he would rather not answer a question before talking to a lawyer, they moved on to another question.)

• The bloody sock-print didn’t fit his foot. (It did.)

• Elizabeth admitted to Söring that she killed her parents under the influence of “drugs” (This never happened.)

There are a couple more, but you get the picture: Same tale since 1990. If Benecken cares whether it’s true or not, he doesn’t show it. Benecken publishes a lot of books, and they’re written at a level just above tabloid journalism.

There are two interesting things about Benecken’s book. First, Söring used the book to try out a fresh excuse for a damning fact: his signed waiver of his right to consult with a solicitor, executed at 12:60 pm on 5 June 1986:

Here’s the relevant passage from Benecken’s book (in my informal translation):

[Söring]’s English defense lawyer, during their last meeting four days previously [i.e. on June 5th, 1986, before Söring started his confessions], had stressed ‘Say nothing until I’m there.’ When Söring [after this conversation] arrived at the police station, he was then, to his confusion, presented with a sheet of paper on which was printed a question as to whether he wanted a lawyer at this time. He checked ‘no’ in the firm belief that he already had a defense lawyer who would sooner or later come to the station. Today, Söring calls ticking this box ‘one of the biggest mistakes of my life’, since from that point on, his ‘no’ would always be interpreted as him indicating he wanted no lawyer. That was not the case.

Incidentally, here’s a non-exhaustive list of some of the things Söring has called some of the “biggest mistakes” of his life:

• Showing police the scar on his finger from his struggle with Derek Haysom.

• “Lying” to the police in 1986.

• Trusting Elizabeth Haysom.

• Trusting the people around him to do right by him.

• Keeping a suitcase stuffed full of incriminating documents with him at all times during his international flight from the law.

• Giving Scotland Yard permission to search his London flat, leading to discovery of said suitcase full of evidence.

Back to Söring’s excuse for waiving legal counsel. Söring has long known that his signed waiver of a lawyer might be a problem if people discovered it. They did. Soering’s first attempt to explain his signed waiver away came during the “suppression hearing” held in March 1990 in Bedford County 3 months before his trial. The purpose of this hearing was to determine whether Söring’s London confessions should be admitted as evidence.

Söring’s many signed waivers of his rights were a theme during this hearing. Söring testified. His excuse for signing a waiver of his right to speak to a lawyer directly after his arrest on April 30, 1986, was essentially that scary grownups made him do it: “When you’re in a police station and you've got three policemen standing around you and you're by yourself and they tell you to sign something, you sign it.”

At 12:50 pm on June 5, 1986, before his questioning on the murder of the Haysoms, Söring signed away his right to a lawyer again. Why? Here’s the excuse he gave during the March 1990 suppression hearing in Bedford County:

Q: Now, Mr. Soering, you have talked about how much you wanted a lawyer of any type, British lawyer, American lawyer, any kind of lawyer. If you wanted a lawyer, this is at this particular point In time, when you are first brought to Richmond Police Station, and you are advised of your right to a solicitor —

A: Right.

Q: — If you wanted one, why In the world did you sign that form at 12:50 p.m. indicating that you did not want one?

A: I had a solicitor and he was on his way to the police station.

Q: You had a solicitor, but, sir, you signed that saying that you did not want one. And you also. It was also crossed out that you did not want one at this time.

A: I signed where it says, "I do not want one at this time," but at the Richmond Magistrate’s Court Mr. Barker said I had a right to a lawyer, I shouldn’t say anything until he was there and he would come to the police station. And I signed that and I expected that I would have a lawyer when I was interviewed.

Q: Yes, sir. But when you signed this, you were Indicating you didn't want a solicitor. Now, If you wanted —

A: I had Mr. Barker.

…BY MR. UPDIKE:

Q: Isn't it true, sir, that you were explained your right to a solicitor at that point and you signed this form as a waiver, "I do not want a solicitor at this time"? Isn't that what happened?

THE WITNESS: That's correct. This was because I had a solicitor and my solicitor told me he was coming.

BY MR. UPDIKE:

Q: Then, sir, wouldn't you agree the logical, and the appropriate, and the correct thing for you to have done, if that is what you had meant, was Just to simply sign it, "I want a solicitor as soon as practicable," because you wanted to talk to Keith Barker as soon as practicable, didn't you?

A: But he said he was coming.

Q: Yes, sir, but that doesn't change the fact that you would have a written document of the fact that you wanted that to occur?

Whatever Söring may have thought, he consented to being interviewed by the police later that afternoon — and was warned again, verbally, that he had the right under both British and American law to insist on consulting with a lawyer first. Judge Sweeney thus ruled that Söring given the confessions voluntarily and knowingly, and they were played for Söring’s jury.

Benecken’s Interview

Benecken gave Welt reporter Katja Mitic an interview timed to coincide with the release of Benecken’s book. Based on a puff piece she wrote about Söring in December 2022, I light-heartedly proclaimed Mitic a member of Team Söring. Yet her 23 May 2023 interview with Benecken struck a much more skeptical note. She observes asks Benecken why, if he’s writing a book about German criminal justice, he relies so heavily on an American case. Benecken gives a revealing answer: “The USA is always portrayed as the ultimate unfair system (das Unrechtssystem schlechthin — China and Russia were unavailable for comment) and provokes something of a smile, as if to say: Everything’s screwed up over there. By contrast, court judgments in Germany are viewed as almost God-like” Benecken then makes the point that at least Americans are concerned about the problems in their system and study them intensively, while German scholars and experts simply assume their system runs correctly. Mitic points to a study suggesting that up to 25% of German criminal judgments are inaccurate, and Benecken says his experience confirms this number (I believe it’s way too high).

Mitic then addresses the other supposed flaws in Söring’s conviction, including his “false” confessions, the testimony of Elizabeth Haysom (she doesn’t explain why it is improper to have an eyewitness accomplice testify), and the bogus “sock-print” expert Hallett. Importantly, Mitic frames all these questions in the subjunctive or indirect mode, which stresses that these are all merely allegations, not established facts. Mitic and Benecken then turn back to Germany. At the end of the interview, Mitic returns to Söring, noting that there are “critics” who think Söring is guilty, and asking Benecken for his personal view. Benecken waffles, saying there’s inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, but the point of his book is to endorse the principle of in dubio pro reo, “in doubt rule for the accused”. Every member of Team Söring recites this cliché without noting that it applies only to people accused of crimes, not people who have been convicted of them.