The Hamburg Uni Law School Interview with Jens Söring: How it Happened

Part II, the Non-Serious Part: I visited an alternate universe where the Söring interview already happened, and bring back this exclusive report

Note to readers: In case you were in any doubt, this post is intended as opinion and satire. (There are some very literal-minded people out there.)

Based on my careful review of every one of Söring’s public appearances (which I have indeed conducted, in this universe), here’s a summary of how Söring’s interview at the University of Hamburg Law School would have gone had it not been canceled [/begin satire]:

Professor MK: Greetings students, we have an exciting guest for you: Jens Söring. He spent 33 years in prison for a crime he says he didn’t commit, but we are not going to discuss that. As fascinating and controversial as it may be, the question of whether Jens actually murdered two people is not the subject of tonight’s event. How can puny mortals such as us answer the question of whether he did it? Who are we to say? Were we there? Did we see him stab the victims?

Nevertheless, haters and trolls out there will get mad if I don’t mention that Jens was convicted of murder, all his appeals failed, and he was released because the Virginia didn’t think further incarceration of Jens Söring and Elizabeth Haysom had any point. Virginia did not release Söring because of innocence. The Parole Board reaffirmed his guilt. So there, I said it. Yet one thing is clear: Jens has never been convicted of a crime in Germany.

Now I’ll give the microphone to Stephan Grulert, Jens Söring’s lawyer and friend:

Stephan Grulert: Professor MK couldn’t say it, but I can: Jens is innocent and was screwed over by the American justice system. Read his 2021 book to find out how and why. But remember, the subject of tonight’s presentation is not Jens’ guilt or innocence.

[Interview begins]

Professor FJ: Welcome, Jens!

JS: Thanks! I am really delighted to be here, sharing the stage at a taxpayer-funded public law school in Germany, and speaking with not just one but two respected law professors. Imagine that: I’m a convicted murderer without even a college degree (sure, I could have gotten college degrees in prison, but I had other priorities), and now I’m discussing the finer points of the American criminal justice system with two professors! I am going to put a photo of this event on the front page of my website and leave it there forever.

Professor FJ: OK, let’s get started. [Recites basic facts of case]. What was it like waiting for the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to decide your case?

JS: It was horrible — I had to live for 3 years under the direct threat of a death sentence.

Professor FJ: Why did the ECHR think Virginia might convict you and sentence you to death?

JS: Well, because I confessed to the murders. They had no other evidence.

Professor FJ: Remember Jens, this isn’t about guilt or innocence. But tell us, why did you confess?

JS: To protect my girlfriend Elizabeth.

Professor FJ: Protect her from what?

JS: I can’t answer that because haters and trolls have threatened to sue me if I do.

Stephan Grulert: I can answer it! According to his trial testimony, my friend Jens confessed to protect Elizabeth Haysom from going to the electric chair for personally stabbing her own parents to death. Here’s a video clip of his trial testimony in which he explains how Elizabeth confessed the murders of her parents to him. [video clip is played].

Professor FJ [shuffles papers]: Wait, I’m a little confused by something. Elizabeth Haysom agreed to extradition, pleaded guilty and was sentenced in October 1987. In the USA, you can’t be prosecuted twice for the same crime. So as of October 1987, Elizabeth was out of danger of the death penalty. Why didn’t you retract your confessions then?

JS: My lawyers told me not to. They said if I retracted my confessions in 1988 (let’s say) that would mean I’m innocent, and therefore Virginia couldn’t execute me. And since I would then no longer be under threat of execution, the whole human-rights case before the ECHR would fall apart.

Professor FJ: But wait a second — if you recanted your confessions, you claim your London lawyers said that would eliminate any chance of execution and you could potentially walk out of prison the next day as a free man. At that point, who cares what happens to the human-rights case? Yet instead of potential freedom, you preferred instead to stick by your confessions and wait through months of uncertainty, facing a possible death sentence?

JS: Yes.

Professor FJ: Uh, may I ask why?

JS: My London lawyers told me I had to! What else can I say? My hands were tied!

Professor FJ: Your London lawyers advised you to continue to stand by your murder confessions, risking a potential death sentence (since there was no guarantee you would win your case), instead of retracting them, which would — as you claim your London lawyers told you — have guaranteed that you would not be executed?

JS: Yes, that’s what they told me.

Professor FJ: Really?

JS: Yes.

Professor FJ: Well, I guess we’ll never know, since their advice to you is protected by lawyer-client confidentiality. Let’s move on. [Describes European Court of Human Rights judgment.] So, the ECHR issued its opinion in your case on 7 July 1989. After that judgment, (1) there was obviously no longer any reason to wait for the court to rule, (2) Elizabeth was out of any danger of facing a death sentence, and (3) you yourself were now no longer in danger of getting a death sentence, because you won the case. I presume you retracted your false confessions sometime after 7 July 1989, after the legal situation was clear.

JS: Uh, no, actually. The first time I said the confessions were false was in June 1990, at my murder trial in Virginia.

Professor FJ: Why did you wait? Why did you let everyone in Virginia think you stood by your confessions as you were preparing for your own murder trial? Why did you let a jury be selected without ever telling anyone your confessions were false? Why didn’t your lawyers hold a press conference in, say, January 1990, and announce to the world that your confessions were false? Wouldn’t that have alerted everyone in Virginia that there were more sides to this story?

JS: Uhh…

Professor FJ: We can’t ask them why they didn’t do this, because their strategy and advice to you is protected by lawyer-client confidentiality.

JS: It sure is! I really like that law.

Professor FJ: Are you aware that you can waive that confidentiality and let your lawyers speak freely about what you talked about with them and how you planned your trial strategy?

JS: What?!

Professor FJ: I have a simple one-page waiver form right here. All you have to do is sign it, then we can link in your trial lawyers by video conference. Surely they’ll confirm your story.

JS: [Söring fidgets nervously.]

Professor FJ: OK, moving on. You recanted your confessions at trial in June 1990. But wait, you just said your London lawyers told you that if you took back your confessions, the murder case against you would collapse. But then you did retract your confessions. At that point, Virginia should have dropped its murder charges against you, like your London lawyers (as you claim) said would happen. But they didn’t, and you were convicted.

Why? Remember Jens: We’re not here to discuss your guilt or innocence. But you can tell us your point of view. Feel free — there’s no one here to challenge your story.

JS: Understood. I’m not going to discuss my guilt or innocence. But my trial was a travesty. The judge was biased and lied about it in court, my defense lawyer was incompetent and mentally ill, Elizabeth Haysom committed perjury, Donald Harrington committed perjury, the detectives who testified against me committed perjury and extortion, and the prosecutor committed perjury and hid evidence of my innocence. The only evidence against me was a sock-print, which we all know is junk science. I describe all this in my books.

Professor FJ: [Nervously] Whew! That was a lot of allegations! But we’re not here to discuss your guilt or innocence. So let’s now discuss the complex jurisdictional issues raised by ascertaining the proper venue for you claims under the European Conven—

[Student raises hand]: Excuse me, Professor, I hate to interrupt, but uh, me and the other students here need some closure on this whole unfair-trial issue. Mr. Söring just made a whole bunch of sizzling-hot accusations. Are they true? Does he have evidence to back them up?

JS: Oh boy do I ever! First of all, —

Professor FJ: Remember Jens — we’re not here to discuss guilt or innocence!

JS: Yes, I understand. I won’t claim I’m innocent. I’ll just claim I was railroaded in an unfair trial reeking with perjury, bias, and xenophobia. And here’s how it all went down:…

[30 minutes later]

Professor FJ: OK, I would just like to make clear to everyone here that this point of this event is not to determine whether Jens is guilty or innocent. Jens has just described his point of view. Whether all of these allegations are true or not cannot be decided here. Frankly, I don’t know enough about the case to tell whether they’re true or not. I am, however, required by my duty of objectivity to tell you that it is alleged that certain humans exist who apparently do not believe Jens’ accusations…

Stephan Grulert: They’re haters and trolls! Ignore them!

Professor FJ: …one of these people, I feel I must add, is a lawyer named Andr—

Stephan Grulert: Anathema! Anathema! Do not let that name cross your lips! [Grulert pulls out an air horn.]

[/end satire]