I disagree with you about the footprints. I recall that at least four and maybe more photos of relevant footprints were put into evidence for the jury to consider. I have some photocopies of these. You can also see photos of Elizabeth's and Jens's footprints on Murderpedia. They are different. If you consider the foot as having a triangular structure for its points of contact with a surface, the design of this triangle would be from the heel to the fifth metatarsal point (little toe) and over to the first metatarsal point of contact (big toe.) If you put water-based paint on the bottom of your feet and walk on some rolled out paper (done it) you will begin to see how the foot works. If a sock were dry that would not make a good impression, but IF a sock were saturated in paint--or blood--you will get a good impression of the points of contact on a hard-wood floor, which would clearly indicate what some might call the ' balls' of the feet. I can tell the difference, sometimes quite easily, between these photos submitted to the jury of the feet of persons who might have been considered at some point to have possibly been involved. (And who and provided their foot impressions voluntarily.) The closest match to Jens's foot was not Elizabeth's. It was of another male. But you could see that there was a difference in the arches, and this male's arch left a slight impression, a brush mark on the paper. That of a slightly flatter arch. In Elizabeth's case there was a difference which I can see on even the internet photos, if given a few moments to reflect. And this is that the first metartarsal of Jens Soering (big toe) is further away from the second metartarsal (second toe) --there is a noticeable gap. My examination of my own foot showed no such gap, which is good since every now and then I think I was there. Soering's foot might be considered to be a bit unusual. I am not sure about that though. But Elizabeth's big toe would definitely fit in the gap between Soering's first and second metartarsal. Also, Soering's entire metatarsal pad --the fleshy structure that hold the toes--is wider and in a sense stronger than Elizabeth's. I have concluded categorically, and without reservation, that Soering's foot is different from all the others submitted, and the jury thought so, too. That's twelve people who looked hard at the same photos, and who came to the conclusion that I have come to. And Soering's foot matches the footprint from a sock soaked in blood, with its points of contact, the balls of the foot, clearly showing that there is an unusual space between the first and second metatarsal. Not in the other photos and not probably in the ordinary run of footprints, or so I suspect. I just don't see any problem with the footprints. And by the way. Footprint science, like fingerprint science, came out of the Raj--such as the old Madras Constabulary. Indian police could examine a human footprint found in a bazaar and in four hours could solve the case. In one case, I think it was in the Punjab, a stolen racehorse with a cracked hoof was tracked for two weeks before being lost. But the neighborhood where the last hoofprint was seen was put under close surveillance and the horse was recovered. The interesting thing about the work of Robert Hallet that I noticed in some Virginia cases is that he actually determined which evidence could be considered to be irrelevant, that is to say, which handprint excludes which person. It was thus not merely a scientific process of inclusion, but also one of exclusion. Hallet's reputation has been savaged by half-baked zealots such as Harding.
I agree with you on everything. The point I was making, however, wasn't directly related to who made the footprint, it was whether the defense did an competent job of challenging the state's case. I agree LR3 matches Söring's foot best, but the logical argument for the defense to make is that since LR3 is a slightly smeared impression of a socked foot, it is *imprecise* -- much more imprecise than an actual foot impression. Therefore, it could conceivably have been made by lots of people whose feet were, in general, *somewhat* near the size and shape of the smeared sock-print.
That includes Elizabeth. It's *less* likely that she made LR3 than that Söring did, but it cannot be ruled out. The only footprints which could be ruled out were prints which were *much* larger or smaller than the sock-print (or where toes were missing), and thus could not have been matched even *remotely* to a smeared, imprecise sock-print. That wasn't the case with Elizabeth's footprint. Therefore, as a competent defense lawyer, your best argument is that she could have made it.
Now, the other thing a competent defense lawyer would have done is hire their own independent expert to look at the evidence and challenge the conclusion that Söring could have made the footprint. I am certain that this occurred; it would have been gross malpractice not to have an independent expert review the footprint, and neither Neaton nor Cleaveland committed gross malpractice. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that Neaton and Cleaveland indeed hired an independent expert -- perhaps more than one -- and that expert or those experts came to conclusions that were not helpful to Söring's case.
Perhaps you've heard rumors about this or have information about it. If so, I'd love to hear them!
Andrew--If Neaton/Cleaveland had been able to hire an independent private investigator, wouldn't this detective have been able to ferret out the Shifflett/ Albright matter and get it dragged into court in time for the trial? That thing had possibilities of spreading some real confusion in the media. I was told that Neaton took the case because of friendship with Jens's father and accepted a fee that was far too low. This put him into serious financial difficulties. He made some lawyerly mistakes with other clients in Detroit and that cost him his legal practice there. I have sympathy for the guy.
But I suspect that they didn't hire an independent footprint expert. Still, I don't actually know.
The defense was provided with the fingerprint cards from Shiflett and Albright before the trial. They almost certainly chose not to raise the matter first, because they correctly perceived there was no conceivable link between the sexual mutilation murder of a homeless man in Roanoke and the Haysom murders.
But there was an even bigger problem with that strategy: It conflicted with Jens Söring's own testimony. He testified at trial that Elizabeth Haysom said *she* personally killed her own parents in a drug-fuelled rage, and that she had "dried blood" on her forearms. This is why the courts found that there was no error in the defense not raising the Shiflett/Albright issue at trial -- it would have undermined Jens Söring's own preferred trial strategy. Söring never once mentioned the possibility during his own testimony that Elizabeth had told him she had convinced two drifters to help her.
If your defense strategy is for your client to keep his mouth shut, then it's perfectly fine for the defense to "throw in the kitchen sink" and suggest every possible alternative theory, including ones which are inconsistent. After all, the defense's role is to sow doubt about the state's case, not prove its own version. But when your client *does* testify, it's always an extremely risky move, but you can't stop them, because that is their right. When your client testifies, then your role as a defense lawyer is not to raise every doubt, but to support your client's version of events (Elizabeth killed them).
Which is what Neaton and Cleaveland did -- pretty well. They couldn't point to the drifters, because that wasn't what their clients wanted to testify to. If they had pointed to the drifters, they would have been attacked on appeal for undermining their own client's testimony! You can't have it both ways.
As for the footprint, there's an easy way to check whether Neaton and Cleaveland could have found an expert to testify it was inconsistent with Söring's footprint. All you have to do is look at the state and federal habeas corpus appeals, which I have. As a former habeas corpus lawyer myself, what you do in this situation is
(1) consult the trial lawyers' notes to see whether they hired an expert. If so, and the expert wasn't helpful, *and* the expert seems to have been credible and done a good job, you generally let the matter stand, because there is certainly no point in revealing to the world that the *trial lawyers* tried to get an alternate view and were unsuccessful.
(2) If the trial lawyers *didn't* hire an expert, then you, the *habeas lawyer*, hire an expert yourself. If that expert tells you Hallett was obviously wrong and it's clear the sock-print couldn't have been made by Söring, then you're in great shape -- you accused the trial lawyers of incompetence for not looking into this themselves. But if your expert on appeal says "no, the sockprint doesn't exclude Söring", then you quietly shelve your new expert opinion.
So it's inevitable that *some* lawyer, at *some* point, hired an expert to challenge Hallett's conclusions, and this expert wasn't helpful.
What the habeas lawyer did -- which was totally the right thing to do, she's good at her job -- was to do the next best thing: To get experts to say that Hallett's approach was unsound, that he didn't have the right qualifications, etc. They don't actually say the footprint couldn't be Söring's, because it obviously can. They simply take issue with how Hallett phrased his testimony.
But it was all beside the point, really, because Hallett never testified as an expert, and the sock-print matched, as anyone can see.
Adding, it's actually not all that expensive to get an expert for a relatively simple question like this. In fact, you can very often convince them to work for free if the case is interesting and high-profile. Several of Söring's own experts claimed they did just that, and one of the guys who challenged the Hallett testimony says in his report that he got in touch with the defense on his own initiative. There are hundreds of retired people out there who would be happy to spend a Sunday afternoon reading 30 pages of testimony and writing a short memo if it will help free an "innocent" man.
This was not presented to the jury. The result of a later judgement was that both feet had simliarities and differences on the same level so that this leads to a patt.
But my problem is, I find it ridiculous to discuss about the individual who had made this sock imprint if the size doesn't match the bloody shoe imprints. All attempts in Wright's report to explain this fact sound implausible to me. So there is a strong possibility of a second suspect at the scene.
Concerning strategy. It would be very interesting to me, if both had been tried in 1990 or 1987 in front of the (same) jury with the same witnesses in both trials.
That documentary, like all German documentaries on the case, is useless horseshit. As I've pointed out over and over, the jury *did* have Elizabeth's footprint to compare to LR 3. It was introduced into evidence, and they were allowed to personally inspect and compare it. So the documentary is factually wrong, like so much of what passes for "reporting" about this case in Germany.
You should argue only on the quality of the overlay and not judge the whole documentary (which was of no interest in my point) Mr.Hammel. We are not here to create new narratives we are here to focus on detail by detail.
Correct the following sentence if it is wrong and add the evidence, please. The jury had no chance to evaluate Haysom's footprint in the same manner as Soerings footprint!
This is the picture of the original overlay from Hallet of LR3 and Soering's footprint. So Soering's footprint is on the transparent foil. Haysoms hardcopys were almost useless!
I disagree with you about the footprints. I recall that at least four and maybe more photos of relevant footprints were put into evidence for the jury to consider. I have some photocopies of these. You can also see photos of Elizabeth's and Jens's footprints on Murderpedia. They are different. If you consider the foot as having a triangular structure for its points of contact with a surface, the design of this triangle would be from the heel to the fifth metatarsal point (little toe) and over to the first metatarsal point of contact (big toe.) If you put water-based paint on the bottom of your feet and walk on some rolled out paper (done it) you will begin to see how the foot works. If a sock were dry that would not make a good impression, but IF a sock were saturated in paint--or blood--you will get a good impression of the points of contact on a hard-wood floor, which would clearly indicate what some might call the ' balls' of the feet. I can tell the difference, sometimes quite easily, between these photos submitted to the jury of the feet of persons who might have been considered at some point to have possibly been involved. (And who and provided their foot impressions voluntarily.) The closest match to Jens's foot was not Elizabeth's. It was of another male. But you could see that there was a difference in the arches, and this male's arch left a slight impression, a brush mark on the paper. That of a slightly flatter arch. In Elizabeth's case there was a difference which I can see on even the internet photos, if given a few moments to reflect. And this is that the first metartarsal of Jens Soering (big toe) is further away from the second metartarsal (second toe) --there is a noticeable gap. My examination of my own foot showed no such gap, which is good since every now and then I think I was there. Soering's foot might be considered to be a bit unusual. I am not sure about that though. But Elizabeth's big toe would definitely fit in the gap between Soering's first and second metartarsal. Also, Soering's entire metatarsal pad --the fleshy structure that hold the toes--is wider and in a sense stronger than Elizabeth's. I have concluded categorically, and without reservation, that Soering's foot is different from all the others submitted, and the jury thought so, too. That's twelve people who looked hard at the same photos, and who came to the conclusion that I have come to. And Soering's foot matches the footprint from a sock soaked in blood, with its points of contact, the balls of the foot, clearly showing that there is an unusual space between the first and second metatarsal. Not in the other photos and not probably in the ordinary run of footprints, or so I suspect. I just don't see any problem with the footprints. And by the way. Footprint science, like fingerprint science, came out of the Raj--such as the old Madras Constabulary. Indian police could examine a human footprint found in a bazaar and in four hours could solve the case. In one case, I think it was in the Punjab, a stolen racehorse with a cracked hoof was tracked for two weeks before being lost. But the neighborhood where the last hoofprint was seen was put under close surveillance and the horse was recovered. The interesting thing about the work of Robert Hallet that I noticed in some Virginia cases is that he actually determined which evidence could be considered to be irrelevant, that is to say, which handprint excludes which person. It was thus not merely a scientific process of inclusion, but also one of exclusion. Hallet's reputation has been savaged by half-baked zealots such as Harding.
I agree with you on everything. The point I was making, however, wasn't directly related to who made the footprint, it was whether the defense did an competent job of challenging the state's case. I agree LR3 matches Söring's foot best, but the logical argument for the defense to make is that since LR3 is a slightly smeared impression of a socked foot, it is *imprecise* -- much more imprecise than an actual foot impression. Therefore, it could conceivably have been made by lots of people whose feet were, in general, *somewhat* near the size and shape of the smeared sock-print.
That includes Elizabeth. It's *less* likely that she made LR3 than that Söring did, but it cannot be ruled out. The only footprints which could be ruled out were prints which were *much* larger or smaller than the sock-print (or where toes were missing), and thus could not have been matched even *remotely* to a smeared, imprecise sock-print. That wasn't the case with Elizabeth's footprint. Therefore, as a competent defense lawyer, your best argument is that she could have made it.
Now, the other thing a competent defense lawyer would have done is hire their own independent expert to look at the evidence and challenge the conclusion that Söring could have made the footprint. I am certain that this occurred; it would have been gross malpractice not to have an independent expert review the footprint, and neither Neaton nor Cleaveland committed gross malpractice. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that Neaton and Cleaveland indeed hired an independent expert -- perhaps more than one -- and that expert or those experts came to conclusions that were not helpful to Söring's case.
Perhaps you've heard rumors about this or have information about it. If so, I'd love to hear them!
Andrew--If Neaton/Cleaveland had been able to hire an independent private investigator, wouldn't this detective have been able to ferret out the Shifflett/ Albright matter and get it dragged into court in time for the trial? That thing had possibilities of spreading some real confusion in the media. I was told that Neaton took the case because of friendship with Jens's father and accepted a fee that was far too low. This put him into serious financial difficulties. He made some lawyerly mistakes with other clients in Detroit and that cost him his legal practice there. I have sympathy for the guy.
But I suspect that they didn't hire an independent footprint expert. Still, I don't actually know.
The defense was provided with the fingerprint cards from Shiflett and Albright before the trial. They almost certainly chose not to raise the matter first, because they correctly perceived there was no conceivable link between the sexual mutilation murder of a homeless man in Roanoke and the Haysom murders.
But there was an even bigger problem with that strategy: It conflicted with Jens Söring's own testimony. He testified at trial that Elizabeth Haysom said *she* personally killed her own parents in a drug-fuelled rage, and that she had "dried blood" on her forearms. This is why the courts found that there was no error in the defense not raising the Shiflett/Albright issue at trial -- it would have undermined Jens Söring's own preferred trial strategy. Söring never once mentioned the possibility during his own testimony that Elizabeth had told him she had convinced two drifters to help her.
If your defense strategy is for your client to keep his mouth shut, then it's perfectly fine for the defense to "throw in the kitchen sink" and suggest every possible alternative theory, including ones which are inconsistent. After all, the defense's role is to sow doubt about the state's case, not prove its own version. But when your client *does* testify, it's always an extremely risky move, but you can't stop them, because that is their right. When your client testifies, then your role as a defense lawyer is not to raise every doubt, but to support your client's version of events (Elizabeth killed them).
Which is what Neaton and Cleaveland did -- pretty well. They couldn't point to the drifters, because that wasn't what their clients wanted to testify to. If they had pointed to the drifters, they would have been attacked on appeal for undermining their own client's testimony! You can't have it both ways.
As for the footprint, there's an easy way to check whether Neaton and Cleaveland could have found an expert to testify it was inconsistent with Söring's footprint. All you have to do is look at the state and federal habeas corpus appeals, which I have. As a former habeas corpus lawyer myself, what you do in this situation is
(1) consult the trial lawyers' notes to see whether they hired an expert. If so, and the expert wasn't helpful, *and* the expert seems to have been credible and done a good job, you generally let the matter stand, because there is certainly no point in revealing to the world that the *trial lawyers* tried to get an alternate view and were unsuccessful.
(2) If the trial lawyers *didn't* hire an expert, then you, the *habeas lawyer*, hire an expert yourself. If that expert tells you Hallett was obviously wrong and it's clear the sock-print couldn't have been made by Söring, then you're in great shape -- you accused the trial lawyers of incompetence for not looking into this themselves. But if your expert on appeal says "no, the sockprint doesn't exclude Söring", then you quietly shelve your new expert opinion.
So it's inevitable that *some* lawyer, at *some* point, hired an expert to challenge Hallett's conclusions, and this expert wasn't helpful.
What the habeas lawyer did -- which was totally the right thing to do, she's good at her job -- was to do the next best thing: To get experts to say that Hallett's approach was unsound, that he didn't have the right qualifications, etc. They don't actually say the footprint couldn't be Söring's, because it obviously can. They simply take issue with how Hallett phrased his testimony.
But it was all beside the point, really, because Hallett never testified as an expert, and the sock-print matched, as anyone can see.
Adding, it's actually not all that expensive to get an expert for a relatively simple question like this. In fact, you can very often convince them to work for free if the case is interesting and high-profile. Several of Söring's own experts claimed they did just that, and one of the guys who challenged the Hallett testimony says in his report that he got in touch with the defense on his own initiative. There are hundreds of retired people out there who would be happy to spend a Sunday afternoon reading 30 pages of testimony and writing a short memo if it will help free an "innocent" man.
You should take a second and watch this overlay comparison at 8.20
https://youtu.be/YSKB50LaI6I
This was not presented to the jury. The result of a later judgement was that both feet had simliarities and differences on the same level so that this leads to a patt.
But my problem is, I find it ridiculous to discuss about the individual who had made this sock imprint if the size doesn't match the bloody shoe imprints. All attempts in Wright's report to explain this fact sound implausible to me. So there is a strong possibility of a second suspect at the scene.
Concerning strategy. It would be very interesting to me, if both had been tried in 1990 or 1987 in front of the (same) jury with the same witnesses in both trials.
That documentary, like all German documentaries on the case, is useless horseshit. As I've pointed out over and over, the jury *did* have Elizabeth's footprint to compare to LR 3. It was introduced into evidence, and they were allowed to personally inspect and compare it. So the documentary is factually wrong, like so much of what passes for "reporting" about this case in Germany.
You should argue only on the quality of the overlay and not judge the whole documentary (which was of no interest in my point) Mr.Hammel. We are not here to create new narratives we are here to focus on detail by detail.
Correct the following sentence if it is wrong and add the evidence, please. The jury had no chance to evaluate Haysom's footprint in the same manner as Soerings footprint!
This is the picture of the original overlay from Hallet of LR3 and Soering's footprint. So Soering's footprint is on the transparent foil. Haysoms hardcopys were almost useless!
https://ibb.co/2Ynm3jB
Näherbringen? Du solltest mal anfangen, mit eigenständigen Argumementen zu überzeugen! Du kennst doch die Definition von Trollen!