How Hamburg Law School Stumbled into a Needless Controversy
Part I, the Serious Part: A cautionary tale
Welcome to the first of two posts about the Hamburg Law School Jens Söring Interview controversy. This post will be (mostly) serious. Part II, which will come shortly, will be a bit more light-hearted.
Part I: The Serious Part
There are interesting lessons to be learned from the canceled Hamburg Law School appearance by Jens Söring. They’re not the ones Söring himself wants you to draw — i.e., that he’s a victim of cancel culture. After all, rumors are circulating that he’s sent a cease-and-desist letter to at least one of his critics.
The real lesson is a cautionary tale for public institutions — like the University of Hamburg Law Faculty — which are approached by Team Söring — that is, Söring, his lawyers Stephan Grulert, his PR firm, and his supporters.
The lesson is: 1. Do your homework. 2. Don’t take Team Söring’s version of events on faith. 3. Never forget you are dealing with one of the most controversial people in Germany.
In other words: Do a Google search. The information is out there. Find it before…it finds you.
Let’s go through the episode thoroughly — there’s much to learn.
An Invitation Among Friends
On 12 May 2022, the University of Hamburg posted an Internet announcement for an event involving Jens Söring, Stephan Grulert, and two professors, Milan K. from the University of Hamburg and Florian J. of the Humboldt University of Berlin.
The poster lists a few facts about Söring, including a plug for his new book, and then states “From a legal standpoint, the case of Söring is interesting mainly because of the landmark case from the European Court of Human Rights from the year 1990 [sic] and because of aspects of rehabilitation (Resozialisierung).” The landmark case is, of course, Soering v the United Kingdom, which was published on 7 July 1989, not 1990. The announcement of Söring’s speech was quickly circulated among the thousands of Germans who are following Söring’s media campaign.
Söring was be introduced by Prof. K. and Stephan Grulert, Söring’s lawyer. This is crucial. Grulert is more than Söring’s lawyer — he’s Söring’s friend1, as this screen capture from the German TV show “Galileo” demonstrates:
Now, the point is not that Söring’s not allowed to have friends, or even that lawyers are not allowed to have friends. The point is that the interview with Söring was going to be introduced by his lawyer and friend, who would presumably remain present throughout the entire interview. This fact alone proves this interview with Söring would be one-sided. Jens Söring has never agreed to appear in public anywhere where he might face informed critical questions from people who are familiar with his case and his history. For example, I have repeatedly offered to debate his claims with him or his supporters, and have been met with silence.
The conference organizers were also friendly to Söring. How do we know this? Because of the letter Söring published on his website. Here’s a screenshot, which I am posting because (like the Galileo piece, or the Markus Lanz interview) — things about Jens Söring have a way of disappearing from the Internet:
In the email, Prof. K. declares that the event had to be canceled because of “massive threats” which made it impossible to guarantee that the speech would not be disrupted. Although he doesn’t like giving in to “threats”, he “regretfully” decided to cancel the interview. No proof of these assertions is provided on Söring’s website.
What’s notable about this email is that it’s all in the informal register of German: K. addresses Stephan Grulert and Jens Söring by their first names, and uses the informal “du” pronoun with them. There is no sign of much professional distance here, K. clearly considers Grulert — and, seemingly, Söring himself — as more than mere speaking guests or acquaintances, perhaps even as friends. Clearly, they’ve been in touch for quite a while — probably at least since September 2021 (see below).
What’s wrong with that? Nothing, of course. Law professors frequently have friendly relationships with local lawyers, and that’s a good thing — it keeps them in touch with practice and can help students get good jobs. But this email is further proof that this interview would have been one-sided. Once you start calling someone “du” in German, you’re very unlikely to ask them tough questions before an audience of hundreds. And, as we’ll see shortly, you’re not going to agree to let them be questioned by informed critics either.
The Predictable Backlash
Once it became clear that Söring would be allowed to tell his story without any objective fact-checking or contrary perspective, people began complaining to the University.
I don’t know who sent what kind of emails to the law faculty or the university. If anyone threatened to disrupt the proceedings, they made a big mistake, and it backfired. I wanted the interview to happen. I regret it was cancelled, since it would have been fun to travel to Hamburg and speak to the audience, whether formally or informally. I wanted this event to go forward — just with balance and context.
I also began sending emails to the organizers. I sent a lot of them. How did I send so many in such a short time?
Simple: I have been preparing for Söring to appear at a law school since September of 2021, and have publicly announced that fact. In September 2021, the German news magazine Der Spiegel published its second interview (g) with Jens Söring since his return to Germany. In that interview, Söring said he wanted to lecture at German law schools, and that he was already “in talks” with a specific law school to make this happen. Presumably, he was referring to the University of Hamburg.
In response I posted the following on my former blog on 20 September 2021. That blog, like this one, is free and public — and is followed closely by Team Söring. I made it clear that I would regard an invitation for Söring to tell his story without objective moderation or a contrary perspective at a law school would be a major scandal:
Over the past 30 years, no single individual has done more to propagate distortions and falsehoods about the American criminal justice system among Germans than Jens Söring. Almost everything he says about his case is at the very least misleading, and often provably false. Inviting Jens Söring to talk about the American criminal justice system would be like inviting the Wirecard corporate leadership to lecture about corporate responsibility, or Claas Relotius to lecture about journalistic ethics.
For Söring to tour German law schools, of all places, to spread false information about the American justice system without any pushback or context would be a major scandal. I will do everything in my power to stop this happening. I will of course insist that the law school also invite me, or someone with comparable insider knowledge, to refute his distortions and lies, and give that person equal time. That is the very least they must do. If Söring is allowed to speak at a law school without a contrary perspective, I will of course inform the US Embassy of this fact, and then personally travel to whichever law school and protest, with media in tow. I will do my best to make sure as many Germans and Americans and Brits as possible know what that law school has chosen to do. If you are the professor who is thinking of inviting Söring and you’re reading this, please get in touch with me. If you allow Söring to talk about his case without context or challenge, this would be a terrible decision which will cause blowback on two continents, and damage to the reputation of your law school. If you know which law school is contemplating this action, please send me an email.
I had already prepared my approach long before the May 12 announcement, and had several emails at the ready. All I had to do was fill in the names of the law school and the organizers.
I informed the organizers that I thought it would be inappropriate to host Söring without a contrary perspective to ensure a balanced presentation. I made the following points:
Söring is in no way an objective source of information on the American legal system. He has relentlessly attacked pretty much everyone involved in bringing him to justice. He has called the judge in his case a liar and a perjurer. He has called the detectives in his case liars, perjurers, and extortionists (Kenneth Beever). He has called the prosecutor (now a respected judge) in his case a liar and perjurer, and falsely accused him of violating the Constitution during his prosecution of Söring. He has called most of the witnesses against him — especially Elizabeth Haysom — liars and perjurers. He has called one of his two trial lawyers incompetent and mentally ill (the other one, William A. Cleaveland, he never mentions). I provided the event organizers with specific citations to these attacks and asked them a simple question: “Does this sound like the kind of person who should be allowed to speak at a law school without debate, critical scrutiny, or a contrary perspective? Does this sound like the kind of person who can present students with a balanced and accurate understanding of the American criminal justice system?”
Söring, I assured them, would inevitably turn this interview into a long justification of his innocence. How do we know this? Simple: Söring has never appeared in public — not once — without claiming his innocence. When Söring appeared on the Markus Lanz talk show (the two went jogging together beforehand), the subject was supposed to be just “Söring the person”, and Söring’s life experiences, and the only other guest was a German professor specializing in inmate rehabilitation. And what happened? The interview turned into a one-sided propaganda coup for Söring, in which, as always, he attacked Elizabeth Haysom as a deceitful femme fatale and claimed he was railroaded in an unjust trial. As the German media critic Stephan Niggemeier noted (g), no matter what the ostensible topic of his speech, Söring always turns any speaking engagement into a plea for his innocence. He could be invited to talk about the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow and would soon be going on about perfidious machinations of Jim Updike and Elizabeth Haysom. He would certainly have done just that in Hamburg.
Wait, but wasn’t this interview supposed to be about the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision Soering v United Kingdom? The Court held in that case that Soering could not be extradited to Virginia to face the death penalty, because the long wait between sentence and execution constitution cruel and inhumane treatment. The case certainly is a major human-rights landmark — I cited it repeatedly back when I was a lawyer. But this case is three decades old, and has already been discussed to death in thousands of law journal articles and books. There’s nothing new to be said about it. And Söring was merely a passive observer.
Further, the very focus on Soering v United Kingdom would force Söring to discuss his innocence claims. The reason is simple: When the case was decided, back in 1989, Söring had not yet invented his alternate “Elizabeth did it” history of the case. He was considered by the Court to be a confessed murderer who would face likely conviction if sent to Virginia. No mention is made of his possible innocence anywhere in the opinion. Surely students would wonder about this, and ask Söring when he started claiming that he was innocent of the Haysom murders. Söring would then launch into his standard explanation for why never claimed innocence during the ECHR proceedings: I couldn’t retract my confessions, because then that would mean I was innocent, and therefore Virginia couldn’t prosecute me for murder, and therefore the whole human-rights case would fall apart. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, this story is supported by no evidence, makes no sense, and gets the law completely wrong. Further, it doesn’t explain why Söring continued to stand by his confessions even after the European court ruled on 7 July 1989 and he was returned to the USA to face trial.
Throughout these emails, I maintained a cordial professional tone, and repeatedly offered to travel to Hamburg at my own expense to either (1) provide a critical fact-check of Söring’s claims onstage; or (2) appear at the faculty at a later date to present contrary perspective. I told the organizers I thought students would profit far more from a lively debate involving me, an actual expert on American law, than from a one-sided denunciation of American justice by an unrepentant double-murderer.
I also informed the organizers that if they did nothing to ensure a balanced presentation, I would indeed consider that to be a serious problem, and would alert the press to the fact that Söring was going to be allowed to speak at a publicly-funded law school without any objective moderation or contrary perspectives for balance. I would also appear at the speech no matter what to listen respectfully and answer questions from students both before and afterward, thus providing a fact check for Söring’s claims. I explicitly promised the organizers that I would in no way attempt to disrupt the proceedings, since I firmly believe Söring has the right to state his case — but not the right to be exempt from critical questions.
The organizers may have been referring to my emails when they spoke of “massive threats”. The term they’re looking for is “public debate”. The University of Hamburg is a public university financed by my, and your, tax dollars. Anyone can visit the campus at any time. Including me, and any reporters who might be interested. Did the organizers expect that an invitation from a law school to a perjurer, unrepentant murderer, and fraudster — one who has made hundreds of thousands of euros from his notoriety, and slandered almost everyone involved in bringing him to justice — wouldn’t attract press attention? Jens Söring is one of the most controversial people living in Germany right now. Almost every speech he’s given has been written up in the local press. The only problem here was that press representatives might show up who were skeptical of Söring’s claims and of the decision to host him without any contrary perspective. Press coverage of a controversial use of public funds isn’t a “threat”, it’s democracy in action.
After I sent my polite but persistent emails to the organizers, they ignored me. This, of course, is the strategy Söring has chosen up to know. I have little doubt that Grulert warned the organizers that Andrew Hammel, a “Texan blogger” and “money-motivated troll with no significant influence”2, would probably get in touch with them and spew all sorts of nonsense. So they ignored my constructive input. After the announcement for the interview was removed from the Internet, they even initially refused to confirm whether it was still going to happen, so that I could prepare my visit to Hamburg. Finally, I received reluctant confirmation the speech had been cancelled.
Lessons Learned
None of this needed to happen. The organizers of this event seem to have been unaware of just how controversial Söring is, what he has said in the past — or all the enemies he has made in three decades of incessant verbal assaults on the people who put him behind bars. At this late date, in 2022, especially after the “Söring System” podcast, there’s no excuse for this ignorance.
As I pointed out in January of 2020…
…it is dangerous to take anything Söring says about his case at face value. Söring’s current public persona now seems so earnest and thoughtful and bookish, so much like “one of us”, that many German journalists have chosen to endorse his claims, or at least present them without scrutiny. This has left them with egg on their faces. And now a few law professors have joined their ranks, because they ignored this lesson.
I’ve said it before, over and over, but apparently I have to say it again: By all means invite Jens Söring to give a speech! But if you are a publicly-funded institution and choose to give him a venue to dwell on his innocence claims without objective moderation or a contrary perspective, prepare for criticism and controversy.
And for heaven’s sake, do a Google search, and read the results.
If you’d like to watch that 15-minute mini-documentary on the Söring case — well, you can’t, unfortunately. The piece claimed Söring was innocent, and even contained a dramatized scene in which Elizabeth Haysom supposedly confessed to Söring — an incident which never occurred, and which constitutes a gross libel against Elizabeth Haysom. After complaints about its glaring pro-Söring bias and the absence of any objective commentary, the segment was removed from the Internet, and the TV channel ProSieben apologized for the “clear journalistic errors” which led to its creation. However, I saved a copy — I always do.
If you’re wondering whether I’ve considered suing Söring over these insults, the answer is no. He’s entitled to his opinion, and I prefer open debate to litigation, unless Söring goes much further than these harmless jibes. If anyone decides to burden the German court system with this dispute, it will be Söring, not me.
Hammel du vergleichst dich selbst mit Hitler. Und findest das auch noch lustig. Verzieh dich einfach