I Answer Bettina Röhl's Questions

And boy are they doozies!

Source: Steve Macone

UPDATE: I’ve made changes to the discussion of Andrew Griffiths’ report for more depth and accuracy.

Recently, Bettina Röhl sought contact with me and sent me a list of questions for an upcoming media project she is working on, apparently with a co-author. When I stated that I would answer her questions publicly, exactly as Jens Söring did with NDR, she graciously gave me permission to quote them directly. I have tried to translate them as literally as possible, with only a few deletions on grounds of privacy or relevance.

Let’s begin!

1. Do you know who runs [Soering Guilty as Charged] and who is responsible in the legal sense? I only find the following: holdsworth85

As I have pointed out repeatedly, I have been in personal contact with the author of this blog, an English solicitor. Indeed, his real name has been used in a podcast about the Jens Söring case. I will leave it to Röhl to figure out which episode of which one. Meanwhile, I will continue to respect his right to post anonymously.

Nothing in my contact with Holdsworth has ever led me to harbor any doubt about the accuracy of the information reported on his blog. Neither Jens Söring nor Team Söring has ever publicly challenged any of the substantive arguments Holdsworth made, nor the authenticity of any of the documents he has ever posted or cited.

As usual, Team Söring must resort to irrelevant conjecture and speculation about Holdsworth’s possible background and motivations. This is the default tactic of Team Söring when they are unable to respond with facts or evidence.

2. Do you have more information about Terry Wright? Date of birth, school, university? Rank, civil servant status. (as in Germany, intermediate service, higher service, etc.) Rank status on date of retirement. Date of retirement. Is Terry Wright still alive? Do you have an email address?

Er, no, I don’t know Wright’s date of birth, or precise job classification, or favorite breakfast food. Major waypoints in his career can of course be found on his LinkedIn site, which every journalist so far has found within seconds. Except, apparently, Bettina Röhl.

Unfortunately, Terry Wright died last year of a sudden heart attack. Whether Terry Wright is who he says he is and whether he is an expert on the Söring case can be judged by his many television appearances, most recently in the three-part documentary series Mord, Macht, Medien:

Source: NRD, Mord, Macht, Medien, Der Fall Jens Söring | Der Kampf um die Wahrheit Folge 3/3

I still miss Terry. He was one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, honest people I have ever met. It was a privilege to have gotten to know him.

Question 2 continues, for quite some time:

A powerful current of circular reasoning runs through the so-called Terry Wright Report. The hobby of a pensioner? How do you assess the pensioner Wright's motivation to spoil [Jens Soering’s] chance at a pardon or something similar?There are two convicted murderers, two convicted double murderers. However, Terry Wright's infinite waterfall tries to portray the convicted murderer Haysom as angelic (she only appears as a minor character, although she was also released in 2019), and demonizes the convicted murderer Söring - the whole thing is essentially about Söring. As one hears, [Wright received] no fee, so everything done from a sense of honor? Wright's report reads like an indictment on a (very) pseudo-scientific level, but with a bristling overconfidence in all areas of expertise, including attacks on the qualifications of the experts and some investigators. As always, when something is unusual, it needs an explanation. Perhaps you have one. A new private indictment just in time for [Soering’s] "release" after 33 years?

First of all, Elizabeth Haysom was convicted of the crime of accessory before the fact to first-degree murder, not murder.

Terry Wright explains why he wrote the report in its introduction. Nothing in my contact with Terry Wright suggested that he had any other motivation for writing the report than the one he himself states. That reason is that he was surprised by the claims raised in 2016 that “new DNA evidence” had undermined Soering’s conviction, He wanted to assess those claims based on his own experience and extensive archive of case materials. Wright said that if he had found Söring’s claims were well-founded, he would have changed his mind and advocated for Söring’s release. Based on my years-long personal contacts with Terry Wright, I believe this statement was quite sincere.

In short: Terry Wright was not only an honest man, he also thought carefully about what he said and wrote.

Jens Söring could learn a lot from Terry.

Readers themselves can judge whether the Wright report paints Elizabeth Haysom as angelic. Röhl suggests Wright possibly wrote the report for money, or out of a sense of personal honor. Again, the Introduction to the report answers this question. Wright received no money, and was not trying to rescue his personal “honor” by proving Söring’s conviction was justified — a frequent Söring insinuation.

Röhl then calls the report pseudo-scientific. Röhl is of course in no position to judge this, as she has no training in law enforcement, forensics, criminal law, or criminal procedure, as far as I can tell. Terry Wright, as a senior Scotland Yard detective seconded to the FBI as a liaison officer at the time he retired, had hundreds of hours of instruction in all of these topics, and surely delivered many hours of instruction on these subjects to younger colleagues. Some of his postings are listed in his online resume, which Röhl apparently was unable to find.

In my communication with him, Terry displayed a deep understanding of all major facets of law enforcement. In fact, he was even better-informed than some of Söring’s own experts. For instance, Wright pointed out that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) of 1984 did not require full taping of statements given in police custody in Metropolitan London until long after Söring’s statements were taken. Söring’s confessions expert Dr. Andrew Griffiths complains that only “12%” of Söring’s statements were taped, cites PACE 25 times in his report, and asks rhetorically: “[T]he existence of audio recordings demonstrates that the equipment was available - so why was it not used for all the interrogations?” The answer, of course, is that Söring himself decided when the tape should roll, and the detectives respected his choice. And that was legitimate under English law at the time, since PACE did not require full taping of a suspect’s statements in the London Metropolitan District until 1991 (“We intend to phase taping in over five years. We hope and intend that it should be standard practice by the end of 1991.”)

In short, during his four-decade career in law enforcement, Terry Wright forgot more about law enforcement than Röhl will ever know. Incidentally, Siegfried Stang, another veteran law enforcement official, also reviewed Söring’s claims and even spoke to the man for hours — like Wright himself. Stang came to the same conclusion as Terry Wright: Söring was guilty, and his confessions track the crime scene evidence “99%”. I guess Stang was also in the pay of the Haysom family.

Röhl then compares his report to an indictment, revealing her ignorance of the law. An “indictment” or “information” is the charging document in UK and US criminal trials. Söring’s indictment was confirmed by a unanimous jury verdict in 1990.

3. What do you think of the basic rule of all constitutional states that a person may not be convicted twice for the same offence?

   What effect does this rule have on reporting?

   How tendentious, one-sided should reporting be?

I am very much in favor of the legal principle of double jeopardy (enshrined in the U.S. Constitution) and its civil-law counterpart ne bis in idem. The presumption of innocence ceases to apply after a person has been convicted and the conviction has become legally final. That happened in 1991, when Söring’s direct appeal of his conviction was denied. Both in Germany and in the US, when a person’s conviction has become final, that person is guilty of the crime. After that point, they bear the burden of proving their innocence.

The principle of double jeopardy only comes into play if the state plans to prosecute a person a second time for the same crime. Röhl asks, perhaps rhetorically, whether the principle applies to reporting. The answer is of course no. The principle of double jeopardy prevents the state from trying a person twice for the same crime. It does not give convicted criminals the right to prevent reporters from mentioning the fact that they committed crimes. Especially the crime of murder, the only crime which has no statute of limitations because of its uniquely evil nature. Röhl also asks, perhaps rhetorically, how one-sided reporting should be. My answer is reporting can certainly have a point of view, but as long as that point of view is supported by facts and sound reasoning, it is fairly earned.

The question continues:

The case is suffocating under a mass of information (Masse), but by no means is it all of high quality (Klasse). But the mass prevents a clear sorting of the material and and its proper alignment and weighing. Meanwhile, the context seems to have become more important than the case itself, as it obscures a clear view of the case.

This case is not complicated: Jens Soering murdered the Haysoms because he “hated” them, as he stated repeatedly in his confessions. He hated them because he believed, based on Elizabeth Haysom’s exaggerated and manipulative stories, that they had abused and mistreated her. He also hated them because he believed (accurately) that they disapproved of Elizabeth’s relationship with him, in part because of its unhealthy intensity.

Instead of trying to forbid her from dating him (which would have been pointless and counterproductive), they offered Elizabeth chances to spend time away from him, such as a 1985 Spring Break ski vacation without Söring. They also paid for her to live in a private room instead of student housing starting in September of 1985. To Söring’s alarm and dismay, Elizabeth did not invite him to share the house in which she had a room. As of March 1985, just before Jens Söring murdered them, Elizabeth was working with her parents to arrange an exchange program for Elizabeth to study in Austria, which would have taken her away from Söring for months or even years.

Söring could not bear the thought of losing his “goddess”, as he called Elizabeth. His identity was completely wrapped up in hers in an obsessive folie à deux diagnosed by not just one but two of Britain’s leading forensic psychiatrists. Killing Elizabeth’s parents would accomplish three vital objectives for Söring. First, it would forever remove a potent obstacle to his relationship with Elizabeth. Second, their shared secret would bind Elizabeth to him forever. As the expert at Elizabeth’s trial testified, Söring killed Derek and Nancy Haysom primarily out of a need for control. Third, Söring believed, based on Elizabeth’s stories, that Elizabeth would inherit a substantial sum, which she would obviously share with him.

Söring fled in panic as investigators closed in, and confessed his guilt. He confessed because he believed the police already had enough evidence to convict him and he was “terrified” of the death penalty, so he believed confessing the crime would induce the authorities to spare his life. His confessions were amply corroborated by eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence. After conviction by a unanimous jury, Söring was represented on appeal by talented lawyers with considerable resources who filed thousands of pages of arguments and evidence with all available appeals courts. Söring lost each time unanimously.

There, I summed up the entire case in a few paragraphs. This is not a whodunit, it’s a straightforward, open-and-shut case. Always was and always will be.

Over decades, using his intelligence and his ability to charm certain types of people, Söring convinced many people who should have known better to support his cause. By now, most of them have realized they were taken in and have ceased making statements about the case — or, like Annabel H. and Amanda Knox, have repudiated their support for Söering.

4. Your were instrumental in creating the diction of the Haysom victims’ family. (Sie haben wesentlich die Diktion von der Opfer-Familie Haysom mit bewirkt.) The accomplice E. Haysom is, even if it often appears otherwise in many texts, a perpetrator sentenced to life imprisonment and not a victim. In other words, the Haysoms can be thought of as just as much a perpetrator family as a victim family. (Das heißt, die Haysoms wären ebenso eine Täter – wie eine Opferfamilie.) How do you feel about this? Do your publications amount to a hidden statement that Haysom is not a convicted murderer or is a wrongly convicted murderer? Or not a murderer at all?

I presume by “diction” Röhl means the language and style the Haysom family uses to communicate. I have no idea what Röhl is talking about. As far as I can tell, aside from Elizabeth Haysom, no member of the Haysom family has made a public comment on this case since 2010, when members of the Haysom family opposed Söring’s transfer to Germany. Richard Haysom wrote then: “That ignominious day was for our family, our ‘Sept. 11’ — it never goes away.” Howard Haysom wrote that Jens Soering “has turned himself into a cottage industry of falsehood, criminal celebrity and evil.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself — and I didn’t. The Haysom family has no need of my assistance to express themselves.

Röhl then claims that Elizabeth Haysom is often referred to as a victim, not as a perpretrator. As usual, Röhl cites no evidence or sources for this claim, because there is none. Röhl states that Elizabeth Haysom was sentenced to life imprisonment. This is incorrect, she was sentenced to 45 years on two counts of accessory before the fact to first-degree murder.

In a non-sequitur, Röhl then bizarrely asserts that since Elizabeth Haysom was sentenced, the Haysom family is just as much a family of perpetrators as a family of victims. Once again, I have no real clue what Röhl is trying to say here. In any event, calling the Haysoms a “family of perpetrators” is a revolting and actionable insult. What kind of person goes around insulting the surviving relatives of murder victims?

Röhl then asks whether my publications are intended to portray Elizabeth Haysom as having been unjustly convicted, or not convicted of murder at all. Again, I have no idea what she is talking about. This is false, as anyone who has read any of my many articles on this case would have known. Also, Haysom is not a convicted murderer, she was convicted of the crime of accessory before the fact. Nobody in their right mind — including Elizabeth herself — would suggest that Elizabeth Haysom’s trial was unfair or that she is not guilty of inciting Jens Soering to kill her parents. She pled guilty to the crime and accepted her sentence. Again, Elizabeth Haysom herself says her trial was fair and her punishment deserved. Why on earth would anyone doubt this?

5. In recent years, you have dominated the publishing scene in Germany and America when it comes to the Soering case. [Soering’s] most recent book, "Return to Life", his book after his release, was not about the Haysom case, but about his expectations for the future, preparation of lectures on resilience, and so on. - This book about his new life provided no occastion to accuse Söring of seeking continued public attention to his case. In fact, Söring has been simply reacting to other publications about him for some time now.

Soering’s 2021 German-language book Rückkehr ins Leben (Return to Life) does not mention the word “resilience”, but does indeed discuss Söring’s case, as seen by the fact that Söring mentions the name “Elizabeth” 8 times. Oh wait, sorry, I meant 80 times:

Söring is still obsessed with Elizabeth Haysom, as his many post-release videos about her prove. Even now, Söring is touring Germany talking about his case and Elizab!tch’s perfidy. As I pointed out in my last post, Söring planned to become a world-famous double-murderer in 1986, and has never stopped chasing the limelight. Long before I or Holdsworth ever wrote about the case, Söring was planning a series of lectures, and dreaming of book and movie deals after his release. His claim to only be responding to my publications is an obvious self-serving lie.

Question 5 rambles on:

So is Söring the initiator of the discussions about the case over the last five years? Is he an actor or is he a reactor? You emphasise that the "victim family" Haysom … and the accomplice E.H. want to be "finally, finally, finally" left alone. Have you kept the topic going in recent years and kept it a “hot issue”? Every person has a natural right to present their point of view on their biography. Nobody has a right to expect anyone to be interested in this. It is not possible to deny Söring this right. How provocative are your publications? Söring is on the defensive and Söring's enemies are on the offensive, right?

My articles and book on the case are based on extensive research and report the truth about the case. If Söring finds that provocative, that says more about him than about me. Also, I am not Söring’s “enemy”. I am simply one of many people who have pointed out that his claims are false. I harbor no personal animus towards him.

6. There are Söring enemies, Söring supporters, among them the paralegal Annabell [sic] H. You mention this lady. Have you received any information, documents, case files, name lists, email correspondence or similar from Annabell H.?

   Looks like a lady taking revenge because of some disappointment, says Söring. What do you think?

Of course I have no intention of providing any such list to Röhl. I have, however, been privileged to get to know Annabel H. and have found her to be a thoughtful, intelligent, and honest person. Röhl uses the euphemism “disappointment”. In fact, Söring is spreading the sexist lie that Annabel “turned against him” because he spurned her romantic advances. Söring is careful to do so mainly in live events or in response to questions, presumably to make it difficult to obtain evidence for a defamation lawsuit. Söring is too cowardly to come out and state his claim plainly and let the chips fall where they may.

Söring has never provided a shred of evidence for his claim — no emails, texts, call logs, images, videos, nothing — nor does Röhl provide any. The claim is a lie. Anyone who wants to learn Annabel’s motivations can listen to the German or English versions of the podcast Das System Söring, in which she describes them in detail. Nothing Annabel has said or done has ever led me to doubt that her description of her motivations is in any way inaccurate.

Like Terry Wright, Annabel is an honest person who thinks carefully about what she says.

Jens Soering could learn a lot from Annabel.

7. What does "System Söring" mean? Söring, a true boy wonder?

Again, I’m not sure what Röhl is talking about here. Presumably she is ironically suggesting that I and other skeptics believe Söring has near-magical powers to seduce people into supporting his cause. That is not supported by the facts. What is supported by the facts, as I document in my book, is that Söring has proven able to use his energy, intelligence, articulateness and upper-middle class background and demeanor to convince certain types of people to back his claims.

8. How does the Haysom system work? Is EH behind the username / pseudonym holdsworth85 or another member of the Haysom family? Do you have a guess?

As noted above, the blog Soering Guilty as Charged is maintained by an English solicitor whom I know personally. There is no “Haysom System”. Unlike Söring, the Haysom family has never sued any of their critics or hired a professional PR representative and media lawyer to guide a public-image campaign. No Haysom family member has ever written a book except Elizabeth, and hers has nothing to do with the case. The family has never sought publicity except in response to developments in the case. I described my interactions with the family in my last post. Those statements are truthful and I can back them up. Any public statement suggesting I have been paid or controlled by the Haysom family is actionable defamation against both myself and the Haysom family and will be treated as such.

9. A question for you as a lawyer: What exactly is Söring's legal status? In the USA? In Germany? You said in an interview that Söring should now "serve out" his "suspended sentence" until the end of his life. What did you mean by that?

Finally, an actual question! The answer is simple: Jens Söring remains a convicted double-murderer serving a life sentence. He was released on parole by the State of Virginia. Parole in the common-law system is an act of grace by the executive which permits convicted criminals to serve out their sentence outside prison walls as long as they comply with the conditions of their parole. If a parolee complies with the conditions for a time period up to the time they were sentenced to, they will be “discharged” from parole.

An example: Jimmy is convicted of burglary and sentenced to 5 years beginning on January 1, 2025. On January 1, 2028, Jimmy is released on parole after serving 3 years of his sentence. Jimmy can now live in freedom for the next two years, as long as he complies with the conditions of his parole. Since Jimmy is still serving a criminal sentence, he has fewer rights than ordinary citizens — for instance, Jimmy may be subject to a restriction that he not leave the county where he lives, or that he not associate with other convicted criminals. If he violates these conditions, he can be simply transported back to prison; there is no need for a new trial, because Jimmy is still under sentence. If Jimmy makes it until January 1, 2030 without getting “violated” (i.e. violating the terms of his parole) he will be discharged from parole. He is now a completely free man, albeit with a felony conviction. He may now travel where he wishes, except to countries which (quite sensibly) will not grant visas to convicted felons.

Like all paroled felons, Söring is subject to conditions, which in his case include no contact with the victims’ family and a ban on entry into the US. Since Söring was sentenced to life in prison, he is under these restrictions until he dies. If he returns to the US, he will violate his parole. At that point, the state of Virginia will have the right to arrest him and put him back in prison to serve his life sentence. The fact that Söring has not been convicted of murder in Germany is as obvious as it is irrelevant. Germany and the United States both reciprocally recognize each other as nations governed by the rule of law which provide adequate protections for criminal defendants. Germany correctly classifies the US as a country whose criminal convictions can generally be trusted, and the US correctly puts Germany in this category as well.

It is possible to get criminal convictions in foreign countries “registered” in Germany for certain legal purposes, but these are not relevant to Söring’s unique case. The fact that Söring remains a convicted murderer serving a life sentence continues to affect Söring’s life in Germany — for instance, one of his parole conditions is “uniform good behavior”. If Söring committed a serious crime in Germany, this would violate his Virginia parole, and Virginia could theoretically seek his extradition, although Germany’s constitutional ban on extraditing its citizens would likely apply here.

If Söring commits a crime in Germany, his US conviction could, because of its unique severity, be consulted when handing down sentence. Of course there are additional factors which come into play (severity of the new crime, degree of similarity to Söring’s previous convictions for murder and fraud, etc.) Some past crimes “age out” of eligibility for sentence enhancement, but not ones punished by a life sentences. I learned this when Söring sued me, claiming I was wrong to say his previous convictions could affect his sentencing if he breaks the law here. With help from a professor friend, my outstanding lawyer David Ziegelmayer and I showed my statement was basically correct, and Söring’s lawyers dropped the claim.

10. You have launched an ad personam attack in response to the recent video statements by [a Haysom family member] dealing with the victim-perpetrator [Haysom] family. Orchestrated with Richard Haysom. Do you have any specific information?

First of all, calling the Haysom family “perpetrators” is a disgusting libel. The sons of Derek and Nancy Haysom are respected professionals. Suggesting without proof that they have a criminal record or lifestyle, or were somehow involved in the murder of their own parents, is gross defamation which could and should result in a million-dollar damages verdict. What kind of person would do such a thing? In Germany, it is a crime to “defile the memory of the dead” (Section 189, German Criminal Code). Röhl would be well-advised to also not adopt or broadcast baseless accusations made against Derek and Nancy Haysom in her upcoming piece.

In general, Röhl is of course referring to the video in which a Haysom family member with a long history of mental illness makes physically impossible claims of abuse against two of Derek and Nancy Haysom’s sons. I did not “orchestrate” anything with Richard Haysom, I simply posted the facts underneath her video. The fact that this person has a long history of mental illness is documented in detail online, right now, by none other than their current life partner.

This person has made grievous allegations with no evidence, and thus put their credibility on the line. The fact that a witness suffers from mental illness is considered relevant to credibility in every legal system. This does not mean that statements from such people must or should be completely discounted, of course. It is simply one relevant factor in assessing their credibility. Despite being approached, no news outlet has decided to take up these allegations, no doubt based on their obviously defamatory nature and the complete lack of evidence this troubled person provided for the claims they made.

11. Is it true that Annabel was fired by her employer because of a probable breach of a trust arrangement?

This is obviously a question for Annabel, not me. However, as I have noted before, Team Söring tried to get Annabel in trouble with her employer in the same wave of lawfare that saw them sue me for libel and submit a long complaint to Deutschlandfunk about an interview with the producers of the Söring System podcast. Söring lost his libel lawsuit against me, the complaint went nowhere, and Annabel suffered no consequences from Söring’s attempt to derail her career. A whole lot of time and effort and quite possibly money went into Söring’s attempt to intimidate his critics, and it was all for nothing — because Söring is a public figure and a convicted murderer and fraudster, and accurate descriptions of his actions and those of his supporters are protected by freedom of expression. All those fancy lawyers and PR consultants wasted their time, as have so many people who associated with Jens Söring. Good. That is the price of ignorance and German cultural chauvinism.

OK, that’s it for the questions.

I would advise Ms. Röhl to drop her project. Her questions are based on premises so bizarre and conspiratorial that they are, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, not even wrong. The questions indicate not only that Röhl is still a supporter of Jens Söring, but also that she does not grasp basic questions of law and fact relevant to this case. That is a dangerous combination, as a series of credulous German and American journalists have found out…to their great chagrin.

Will Röhl join them? Stay tuned!

If you enjoyed this post, please consider supporting my work here.