Inspector Stang Elicits Another Awkward Deception from Söring
Söring changes his story yet again in response to a simple question.
The new book by retired inspector Siegfried Stang (“Nebelkerzen”/”Smokescreens”) is very interesting. There’s not much entirely new information, but Stang often casts familiar facts in a new light. And sometimes he lands a scoop, particularly when he asks Söring to comment on various aspects of the case.
Söring clearly thought his interactions with Stang were going to be like those with other cops such as Chuck Reid or Chip Harding: Söring would flood Stang with a Gish Gallop of arguments for his innocence, and Stang would recognize that Söring was the victim of an injustice and join his team. As we have seen, Söring is eager to find support from German-speaking experts and police officers, since the stage has now shifted to Germany. As a result, Söring granted Stang and interview and responded to questions, hoping to recruit a German-speaking police officer to his side. Now that would have been a coup!
No such luck, though. Stang is much more cautious and thorough than Reid or Harding. He asked Söring pointed, critical, well-informed questions. And because Söring was eager to convince him, Söring answered them. And, as always when asked well-informed questions about his innocence claims, Söring stumbles and admits more than he intended.
Here’s an example: Stang reprints a short email exchange between himself and Söring (German original below.1):
My question: Is there an explanation for the fact that between August 1, 1989 (decision of the English government [to authorize Söring’s extradition after Virginia promised not to impose death]) and the beginning of the trial you did not recant any of your confessions?
His answer: Of course! The explanation is quite simple: There is no such thing as "revoking a confession". At least not in America. (I can't imagine that there is such a thing in Germany either.) Even if there were, it would have no legal relevance at all. Because once you've confessed, everything that comes after ... is actually uninteresting. After the ECHR decision on July 7, 1989, I told my U.S. attorney as soon as I could that I was innocent. He wrote all that down. Of course, he did NOT tell the Bedford County police. Why would he? That would have given away the defense strategy early on. As a criminal defense attorney, he was interested in keeping the police and prosecution uncertain as long as possible as to what strategy he would pursue.
There’s a lot to unpack here, but I think the process will be fun. First, note Söring’s use of categorical, absolute language — “Of course!” and capitalized “NOT”! These can be signs of deception, trying too hard to convince one’s conversation partner. Also observe that he says his lawyer “wrote all that down”. It sure would be nice to check on that claim — and Söring could allow us to do so by signing a simple attorney-client privilege waiver form.
Moving on to what Söring said, Stang’s analysis is that this is yet another implicit admission of guilt: If Söring actually were innocent, then he would have had every reason to proclaim his innocence and pressure the Bedford County police to look into his claims. He would have wanted them scouring the records of the Marriott Hotel, speaking to every possible witness, asking every movie theater attendant, looking for video surveillance evidence of him wandering around Washington, D.C. at the time of the crime, and asking labs to re-analyzing every piece of evidence. Now of course Söring’s response — he always has a response — will be that Bedford County had already decided he was guilty and would have simply brushed off his innocence claims. Whenever nothing else works, Söring attacks the motives and honesty of the people who put him behind bars.
But there are several deeper layers to this new revelation. First of all, this proves, if any further proof were needed, that Söring pays close attention to everything I say and write about the case. Before I got involved, Söring invariably spoke of how he had “recanted” his confessions and that once he had done this, the case against him should have collapsed. Yet ignoring the supposedly obvious signs that his confessions were false, the authorities proceeded anyway! This was even the centerpiece of his argument for why he didn’t recant before the Europeant Court of Human Rights issued its judgment: If (1) I recanted my confessions, (2) the case against me would have fallen apart, (3) I would no longer be in any danger of the death penalty, and (4) therefore the Court would never have ruled on the case. As I have noted — and as Stang observes — this argument is incoherent and self-contradictory.
After I pointed out that “recanting” a confession has no legal significance, Söring changed his tune. Presumably he did a bit of research, found out that what I said was true (it almost always is), and realized that his audience was also capable of Googling this simple question. So he subtly changed his story, now admitting that recanting a legally-obtained confession has no legal significance. If a person of sound mind freely confesses after being warned of their legal rights, that confession is good evidence forever, no matter how much they regret it. In other words, Söring took my advice and stopped making this absurd argument.2 You’re welcome!
But now let’s get to the deeper problem with this email: It’s obviously deceptive. Why? Because in late 1989 and early 1990, Söring’s defense strategy wasn’t a false confession/alibi. His strategy was that he was illegally forced to confess by Kenneth Beever’s threats. When Söring got on the witness stand on March 2, 1990 during the pre-trial hearing, he never suggested his confessions were false, he said he was forced to give them because Beever had threatened to harm Elizabeth Haysom unless Söring waived his right to a lawyer and confessed. That defense strategy failed when the judge found that Söring had lied and there was no evidence of any threats.
Only then did the defense decide to switch to its desperate, last-ditch defense: Söring’s confession was false, and Elizabeth actually committed the murders. We know this because it was reported in local newspapers! As I wrote on August 16, 2020 in my old blog “On April 1, 1990, the Roanoke Times published an article entitled “Soering May Shift Blame”:
Soering’s attorneys have yet to spell out their strategy. They have, however, hinted at one possible theory they may try to argue: That Elizabeth Haysom – not Soering – killed her parents.
At first look, the theory may seem hard for a jury to swallow.
So when Söring says he didn’t recant his confession after the July 1989 ECHR judgment because he didn’t want to give away his false confession/alibi strategy, that can’t be true, because that wasn’t his strategy. His defense team’s strategy, from July 1989 (or even earlier) until March 2, 1990, was to claim his confessions were coerced and not voluntary — not that they were untrue.
We have Siegfried Stang to thank for news of this latest story change from Jens Söring. As I read the book, I’ll let you know of other interesting details that pop up.
It’s the same old story: Once one of Söring’s claims crumbles, he quietly replaces it with another, less convincing one. Once the new story crumbles, he quietly replaces it with another, even less convincing one. And so on, and so on, until there’s not a shred of credibility left. It’s a bad sign that until recently, no journalist ever noticed this.
Meine Frage: Gibt es eine Erklärung dafür, dass zwischen dem 1. August 1989 (Entscheidung der englischen Regierung) und dem Prozessbeginn kein Geständniswiderruf erfolgt ist?
Seine Antwort: Selbstverständlich! Die Erklärung ist ganz simpel: Es gibt gar nicht so etwas wie ein(en) „Geständniswiderruf“. Zumindest in Amerika nicht. (Ich kann mir auch nicht vorstellen, dass es so etwas in Deutschland gibt.) Selbst wenn man so etwas machen würde, hätte es gar keine juristische Relevanz. Denn wenn man einmal gestanden hat, ist alles, was danach kommt … eigentlich uninteressant. Ich habe meinem US-Anwalt sobald wie möglich, nach der Entscheidung des EGMR am 7. Juli 1989, gesagt, dass ich unschuldig sei. Das hat er alles aufgeschrieben. Selbstverständlich hat er das NICHT der Polizei in Bedford County gesagt. Warum auch? Das hätte die Verteidigungsstrategie frühzeitig preisgegeben. Als Strafver-teidiger war er daran interessiert, die Polizei und Staatsanwalt-schaft solange wie möglich in Unsicherheit zu lassen, welche Strategie er verfolgen würde.
Söring should be thanking me: I’ve pointed out so many problems and pitfalls in his innocence case that he’s had to subtly abandon his weakest arguments. The result isn’t to strengthen his case, exactly, but he has made it more difficult to attack by canceling the most outlandish claims.
Well Andrew, to change the story against the US law enforcement is never a good idea. I am disappointed tgat you lack that piece of experience during your work.
(That is why they are still filtering out liars with a polygraph if highly suspicious). Cause then you are definitely idintified as a proven liar and that will allways come back against you in front of the jury. You could also study the case of Dieter Riechmann and come to the end that there is an innocent German guy rotten to death in US jail. Riechmann said he never will change his version even if a drug deal was the truth after finding out how corrupt the legal system was in his case.
Remember even Beever was suspicious about if Soering might admit something he didn't do. Together with all the points that law enforcement never had asked themselves in London which are obviously bullshit in Soering's confession you can just interpretate it now. Was he anxious about the attrocities he had done alone - being responsible also for them or did he realize that he will also take it for her. The Massie move was even dumb but brings a second person into the scene as not Elizabeth which got his hero role in DC (which she can not prove). Instead of getting the turning point and telling Gardner that Soering also wanted to kill Gardner, his Grandma and Howard Haysom (implicating that Soering is a serial killer) she said I did it myself.
Well that is a good plot.
So in the Soering case Neaton knew right from the beginning that the London confession might break Soering's neck after presented to the jury. He could also give legal advise to him like telling the truth that both had been at the scene if that was the truth (confession in front of the German state attourney, end of '86). But you could not judge a sentenced accessory before the fact, for first degree murder afterwards as for the same crime. So cui bono. After the trial Neaton said in an interview, that Soering kept is life. That means a lot!