John Grisham Jumps Ship from book by Hamburg Ghostwriter Daniela Hillers

The ongoing farce of Hillers and Guise-Rübe's book "Reasonable Doubt" gets a new chapter.

By the way, since we’re talking about books on the Söring case, don’t forget to consider ordering mine:

It’s pretty good!

Hillers’ Book Promises to be Filled with Errors and Potential Libel

Now let’s turn to another book, this one by Daniela Hillers, who runs a small publishing house in Hamburg called Gallip Verlag, which specializes in ghostwriting. In the middle of 2023, Hillers announced to the world that she would be collaborating on a podcast and a book about the Söring case with Dr. Ralph Guise-Rübe, President of the Hannover Regional Court.

As I said back then: “She’s not a lawyer, much less an expert in American criminal law and criminal procedure. This is not going to end well.”

And it’s…not ending well. As you can see below, Hillers has just had to sacrifice the crucial selling-point of her book: A foreword by American billionaire best-seller author John Grisham. The book will come out, if it ever does, without Grisham’s foreword.

Hillers is typically vague about what is going on, but if I were John Grisham, I would also have pulled the foreword. We now know what is going to be in the book, because a podcast released last month in English (“The Jens Soering Case: A New Verdict”) and German gives us a preview.

If the book is anything like the podcast, and that seems certain, it will be filled with errors and misinformation. I have documented the errors in the podcast here in some detail. Examples are that Judge Guise-Rübe called Ricky Gardner “unprofessional” and said he had committed a “huge mistake” by not giving Söring a lawyer and not recording the last part of Söring’s 4-day “rolling confession” to the killing of the Haysoms.

Guise-Rübe apparently didn’t know that Söring himself refused a lawyer, and himself requested that the tape recorder be turned off. Either that, or he did know both of these choices were made by Söring, not Gardner, but decided to conceal that fact to attack Gardner’s reputation.

Another mistake in the podcast comes from Söring’s only remaining (?) friendly scientific expert witness, Dr. J. Thomas McClintock. McClintock noted that luminol tests performed on the rental car Soering and Haysom used on the weekend of March 30,1985 were not positive. McClintock suggested this was favorable evidence for Soering, as it clashed with Elizabeth’s version of events, in which she washed off bloodstains inside the car, but the car was tested shortly afterward, and showed no signs of blood. Why this is supposed to be important remains unclear.

Let’s assume the negative luminol tests on the rental car were important. What McClintock either did not know or did not care to tell the audience was that the luminol test was performed 87 days after the murders. During that time, the rental car was certainly rented out, returned, and professionally cleaned any number of times. No blood smear could possibly have survived all those professional cleanings over a period of three months. That’s what experts I know have told me.

McClintock refuses to respond to me. He’s gone silent.

The podcast also doxxes Elizabeth Haysom, a particularly low blow.

Grisham Jumps from the Sinking Ship

The book, if it ever comes out, seems likely to perpetuate all of these errors and add new ones. Further, it will contain unfounded attacks on the reputations of people like Ricky Wright and Terry Gardner, who will be going over every page with a fine-toothed comb and then writing their lawyers.

This is what Hillers just wrote on her Instagram page:

Why did I just remove the foreword from one of the world’s most famous authors from my current book?

Are you crazy? Of course people are asking me that. A famous name known ‘round the world is surely an attractive accessory.

So far, so good. But what if I look at my own work and see it as insufficient without his contribution? Or what if I don’t agree with what the foreword author said?

The fact is that many authors think they need someone else until a certain point. It’s really difficult when the style and substance aren’t suitable, since one would have to bend over backwards, if one decided to still use the foreword out of vanity or a lack of resolution (Standing).

…The author I named above is still part of the book, since we are in communication and had an intensive discussion about Jens Söring. His [the author’s] statements are still in the book and are also revealing. Only the foreword is gone.

And why?

Because I can!

In her typical vague style, Hillers transforms a disaster — losing the key marketing plus from an upcoming book — into a tale of empowerment.

It would be very interesting to know why this happened. Anyone who may have some insights is welcome to get in touch with me, confidentiality guaranteed. My guess — and it’s only a guess — is that Grisham either read my blog or listened to the “A New Verdict” podcast and realized he was attaching his name to journalistic dumpster fire. He either flat-out retracted his foreword or re-wrote it to distance himself from some of the book’s wilder — and potentially defamatory — claims.

In other words, Grisham cares about his reputation, which has already taken damage from his advocacy for Soering. Grisham should have known better. It was immediately obvious to me and thousands of other people that Hillers did not have the background, training, or experience to handle this project. Grisham should have spotted this back then. Perhaps he’s just spotting it now.

Will the book ever be published? In my view, it’s increasingly doubtful. Hillers has to know that Terry Wright and Ricky Gardner, among many others, will be reading every page looking for false and defamatory statements about them. If the book is anything like the podcast, they’ll find some.

John Grisham continues to refuse to debate me about Jens Soering’s case. He also hasn’t made any public statements on the Soering case for months, including about the Netflix series in which he appears. Is it because he’s busy? Or is it because he has realized Jens Soering’s innocence claims are meritless?

If the latter, he should show as much integrity as Amanda Knox and come forward. As an influential public figure who actively lobbied on Soering’s behalf, he has a moral duty to tell the public whether he still believes Soering’s claims.

The ball’s in his court.