Has Söring Found His Holy Grail?

Have we identified the German judge willing to pronounce Söring "not guilty"?

Hannover Legal Studies Society Update

As of right now, the speech by Jens Söring at the Hannover Legal Studies Society (which initially pronounced him innocent, but was then forced to retract), is scheduled to go on, with Söring speaking alone and no objective moderation or contrary views. Of course, I have urged them to reconsider this decision, as have many others. I’ll keep you posted on developments there.

I anticipate pushback from the Society, because Söring has of course already warned them that his speech will be controversial and that people will try to “silence” him by using “cancel culture” tactics. People including the “crazy, obsessed money-motivated Texas blogger”. Some of the members of the board will likely stick by Söring to the bitter end, convinced that he is a martyr to freedom of expression who deserves to be endorsed by the German judicial system and a German university. I am sure Söring is sending them all sorts of emails, urging them to stick by their decision and not give in. He can be quite convincing to certain types of people.

I’ve already notified many board members of Söring’s lack of credibility as a free-speech martyr (given that he sued me and has tried to cause trouble for other critics behind the scenes). In fact, Söring seems to have removed the “cancel culture” section from his own website, perhaps aware that he can’t really pull this off, since he’s quite the canceler himself. I have also pointed to many of the exaggerated and grotesque things he says about US prisons (guards masturbating dogs, female guards prostituting themselve to inmates for cash).

Have we found the German judge willing to proclaim Söring “Not Guilty”?

Now on to other matters. A few weeks ago I got some tips from media people who said Jens Söring has found a German judge who was willing to cooperate with him on a podcast on the case. The podcast would set forth Söring’s arguments, and then at the end the judge would pronounce Söring innocent, or perhaps just say that the case wasn’t proved.

This, of course, is Söring’s Holy Grail: A semi-official endorsement of his arguments from an actual sitting judge. My sources didn’t remember the judge’s name, alas, but I think there’s a chance it’s Dr. Ralph Guise-Rübe, President of the Hannover Regional Court (Landgericht). Why? Because this is what he told a local reporter (g) in an article which came out on November 24:

President of the Regional Court Ralph Guise-Rübe has researched the case extensively (eingehend). “There are no forensic traces at the crime scene from Mr. Söring,” he said. The bestial nature of the crime doesn’t fit at all with the personality of the convicted man and there is no convincing motive for the crime.

Landgerichtspräsident Ralph Guise-Rübe hat sich eingehend mit dem Fall befasst. „Es gibt keine forensischen Spuren am Tatort von Herrn Söring“, sagt er. Die Bestialität des Verbrechens passe überhaupt nicht zur Persönlichkeit des Verurteilten und es fehle ein überzeugendes Motiv.

Well, there we have it! Sure, twelve jurors, the presiding trial judge, dozens of appeals-court judges, and detectives and investigators from two countries, and the Virginia Parole Board all concluded the evidence against Söring overwhelming and his innocence claims discredited.

But what do they know?

The same old arguments

About 23 separate stakes have been rammed through the heart of Jens Söring’s innocence story. Yet it still somehow manages to clamber out of its casket and find fresh victims.

Of course, Guise-Rübe’s arguments, such as they are, are unconvincing. The bloody sockprint and the Type O blood were forensic traces consistent with Söring’s presence. They’re not conclusive, of course, but they don’t have to be — they just need to corroborate Söring’s accurate, detailed confessions. The “bestial” nature of the crimes is easily explained: Both victims fought back — one armed with a knife herself. Söring’s system was flooded with adrenaline. Further, knife-killers frequently stab immobilized victims many more times than “necessary” — to stop them groaning and gurgling. And finally, Söring knew that if either one of the Haysoms recovered consciousness (which is not unusual in stabbing murders) all they would need to do is get to a phone and dial “911”. They wouldn’t even need to say anything — the operator would see their address, and 911 sends ambulances to anyone who seems in distress. When one stab wound too few could put you on death row, you’ve got the world’s best motive to give one — or a dozen — stab wounds too many.

As for the “personality” of the assailant, again, the same old story. Jens Söring just seems so much like “one of us”. He jogs, he eats healthy, he has the right political opinions, he reads books and writes them, he seems so darned reasonable (when it serves his purposes). How can such a respectable, educated German be a murderer? You would think that a judge would be too experienced and worldly-wise to endorse this line of reasoning, but apparently not. One is also tempted to note that if there’s any country whose history contains examples of well-educated, intelligent people with impeccable manners committing beastly crimes, that country is Germany (but of course Germany’s not alone).

As for the motive, it’s been right out there all along, proven mostly by Söring’s own words: He was desperate to keep Elizabeth, terrified of her abandoning him, and thought she might welcome the deed because she “despised” her parents and wanted them “out of the way”.

How much research did the judge do?

Dr. Guise-Rübe said he had researched the case “extensively”. Yet a source who has had contact with Guise-Rübe informs me that he didn’t actually seem all that familiar with the facts of the case, and that the fact that Söring came from a respectable upper-middle-class background was a major factor in his decision. I have been in touch with Guise-Rübe and didn’t get the impression that he knew much about the case. I think his interpretation of “extensively” might well be sitting down for a few hours with the cherry-picked “dossier” of pro-Söring information. If he’s done anything more than that, he has shown no sign of it.

I have already shared the ca. 2,500-page long verbatim transcript of Söring’s 1990 trial with Guise-Rübe. Surely a judge would be interested at least in reading the trial record. Surely a German judge would have enough respect for the American justice system to read the evidence that system painstakingly compiled before denouncing its decision as unjust. Let’s assume a sitting American judge sat down and chatted with, say, Benedikt Toth (g), read a few pro-Toth articles, and then declared his conviction wrongful without reading any of the court findings or judicial opinions. Would Guise-Rübe find that a respectful, collegial act?

As of now, I have no confirmation that Guise-Rübe is the judge whom Söring mentioned doing a podcast with. However, I have reached out to contacts in an attempt to confirm this. Whichever judge it is, I have a friendly, collegial word of advice: Reconsider. People who publicly endorse Jens Söring’s innocence story usually live to regret it. If the podcast does actually get produced, I and many others will be there to correct every misstatement, exaggeration, defamatory remark, or outright lie. And if experience proves anything, there will be no shortage of them. The end result will be an embarassment not just for the judge, but for the entire German judicial system.