Grading the Journalists: Simon Küpper of "Express" Gets a D (A German 4)
Söring found another unwitting journalist to enchant with his innocence story.
First, a new feature on this blog. I’ll begin every post with…
The Jens Söring DNA Testing Countdown!
Thanks to the amazing work of the podcast Small Town, Big Crime (STBC), the world learned on 28 June 2022 that Jens Söring has been shown a detailed plan for objective, neutral testing of the DNA evidence in his case using cutting-edge techniques — a plan endorsed by the prosecutor, Söring’s own DNA expert (who suggested the lab), and by two of his law-enforcement supporters.
It has now been
6 days
since those episodes were released, and Söring still has not agreed to testing. Perhaps we should start a crowdfunding scheme: Each of us pitches in a few Euro, and then we offer to present Söring with a cash reward if he signs the DNA testing petition currently waiting before the Bedford County Circuit Court. Who’s in?
Now to the main post:
The German tabloid “Express” just published a fairly long (German) article (for a tabloid) in the now-familiar genre of “Jens Söring’s Life after Freedom”.
So it’s time to play a new round of “grade the journalist”. In this case, the journalist is Simon Küpper, who’s responsible for "Stars, shows and Schlager” (German mass-market pop music). The reason the showbiz reporter did this story, apparently, is because of a tie-in to the Netflix series about Söring, which Küpper says going to be released in November of 2022 (this several months too early according to my sources).
This strikes me as a pretty odd decision, since a German showbiz reporter is unlikely to understand much about American law or the intricacies of the Söring case. And indeed, Küpper shows no familiarity at all with the case except for what Söring has told him. Which, as we know, is mostly spin and distortions.
The principal problem with the interview, of course, is that it doesn’t begin with what is now the most — heck, some would say the only — important question in the Söring case:
“When will you agree to the new bipartisan, reliable DNA testing plan which ready to be carried out as soon as you sign the court documents?”
From now on, any journalist who doesn’t ask Söring this question is either incompetent or in the tank. I will charitably assume Kuepper did his interview before the latest STBC episodes. Charitably.
In any case, Küpper’s article gets a solid “D”, which amounts to about a “4” in Germany.
First, the errors. Küpper writes (German original in footnotes):
“All the time he was behind bars, Söring maintained he didn’t commit the crime. Except in 1986…. [At the end of the article:] ‘Did you kill your then-girlfriend’s parents?’ The answer: ‘Of course not!’ As always — except for back then, in 1986, shortly after his arrest.”1
The verdict:
False. Söring stuck by his confessions for 4 years, from June 1986 to June 1990. I don’t know why Küpper is so eager to mischaracterize four distinct confessions given over a 6-month period as a momentary indiscretion, but the fact that he describes Söring as “nice” and “intelligent” probably gives us a clue whose side the showbiz reporter is on.
Now to another few statements in the article:
Söring confessed the murders because — as he said later — he thought that, as son of a diplomat, he would enjoy immunity. His hope: By confessing, he would save his girlfriend — according to his court testimony, the real killer — from the death penalty.2
Naive, but at least there’s a little distance. Küpper does at least signal to the reader that these are things that Söring says, and that Küpper doesn’t know whether they’re true or not. Why a journalist would publish a convicted killer’s factual claims without trying to verify them is beyond me, but that’s what most German coverage of the Söring case has amounted to: “Söring says this happened to him, and isn’t that just awful?”
Back to the statements: As we know, both are false. Söring’s own words from 1986 prove he never entertained the notion that he might enjoy diplomatic immunity for a double-murder, was expressly warned by the police there was a “90%” chance he’d be sent to Virginia to stand trial, and never mentioned diplomatic immunity during his interrogations. Further, Elizabeth Haysom was never charged with any offense which could have been punished by death. Nor did he tell anyone for four years that he’d only confessed to “save” Elizabeth (unless you count his family members, but he’s gone back and forth about that, too).
The rest of Küpper’s article deals with how Söring is readjusting to life in freedom. That’s not germane to this blog, but as always, I wish him well in general.
The main problem with Küpper’s piece, though, is the 7-minute interview with Söring which appears in a video feature. In this interview, Söring talks about his innocence claims at length without any pushback or context. They just allow him to say whatever he pleases, without making any attempt to verify his claims. Given free rein, Söring provides a “greatest hits” summary of his innocence arguments.
However, as we’ll see, Söring now seems to understand that many of the lies and distortions he once told about his case just won’t fly any longer. There is now a mass of accurate information out there that disproves them. Here are some examples of the watered-down claims he made in the interview:
Söring now carefully avoids saying that the FBI created a “profile” about him. He is presumably aware that there is now tons of public evidence contradicting this statement. Instead, he merely mentions Ed Sulzbach as someone who made “notes” about the crime scene and developed a theory which pointed to a “woman close to the family”. Of course, Söring conceals the fact that when Sulzbach said that he was ultimately proven right, Sulzbach was commenting about Elizabeth Haysom being convicted as an accomplice, not about her being the murderer.
Söring also mentions the “five law enforcement officials” in the USA who now endorse Söring’s claims. What would be interesting is to see how many of these men continue to endorse Söring’s innocence after they hear the “Söring system” podcast in English and learn that he refuses to authorize new, cutting-edge DNA testing of the evidence in his case. Perhaps a few of them are thinking of jumping ship. Maybe in future interviews Söring will start talking about the “four” cops who support him, then the “three”….
Interestingly, Söring also presents a much more modest DNA claim than before. Before, he told anyone who would listen that DNA put two male strangers at the crime scene, proving his innocence. Want proof? How about this 2016 Washington Post headline: “Jens Soering Says New Blood Analysis Proves his Innocence”. Those were the days! Söring now seems to understand that this argument won’t float anymore. So now he simply says that the 2009 report showed that none of his DNA was found at the crime scene. Which, of course, is accurate as far as it goes. It’s interesting Söring even mentions the DNA, since we now know how dangerous this issue is for him. However, he has toned down his argument considerably, and doesn’t seem eager to elaborate on the point.
Finally, Söring goes on and on about why Virginia didn’t declare him innocent. Of course, his version is the same old speculation: politicians didn’t want to face the ire of crime-weary voters, the victims’ family was adamant that he be kept in prison, etc. He also adds a new twist: Virginia wanted to release Elizabeth Haysom because some members of the Haysom family wanted her released, and then grudgingly decided to release Söring as well, but not to declare him innocent. This is, of course, all nonsense. Söring was released without a finding of innocence because the Virginia Board of Paroles investigated his case thoroughly for decades and concluded his innocence claims were all meritless. Küpper could have found this out with a 3-second Google search.
The one reason Küpper doesn’t get a failing grade is that at lease he did not come out and explicitly endorse Söring’s innocence claims. The one lesson the German media seem to have learned is that endorsing Söring’s claims is blatant journalistic malpractice and will earn them complaints from viewers, readers, and oversight boards.
What this article shows, however, is that there are still journalists out there who will give Söring a stage, but do nothing to alert their readers and viewers to the fact that Söring cannot be trusted, and that there is a radically different side to the story which, unlike Söring’s spin, is based on facts, documents, and reliable testimony.
Leaving out this crucial context is also journalistic malpractice, and Küpper is guilty of it here. So he receives a “D”.
“All die Zeit, die er hinter Gittern verbrachte, beteuerte er, die Tat nicht begangen zu haben. Außer im Jahr 1986…. Haben Sie die Eltern ihrer damaligen Freundin umgebracht? Die Antwort: „Natürlich nicht!“ Wie immer – außer damals, 1986, kurz nach seiner Verhaftung.”
“Söring gesteht die Morde, weil er – so sagt er später – denkt, als Sohn eines Diplomaten Immunität zu genießen. Seine Hoffnung: Durch das Eingeständnis der Schuld seine Freundin – laut Sörings Aussage vor Gericht die eigentliche Täterin – vor der Todesstrafe zu schützen.”
I emailed the person who runs the website and she said she took down the interview for personal reasons, and asked me not to refer to it.