Judge Ralph Guise-Rübe Appears in a Podcast and Deceives Listeners

Jens Söring gets yet another gullible jurist to sacrifice his reputation. How does he keep finding new victims?

Please forgive my for opening this post with a plug for my new book, which you can get in electronic or paper version everywhere there’s Amazon. There’s even more important news. I have renamed my personal website to hammelwords.com. I have dedicated a page to providing everyone access to the entire trial transcripts of Elizabeth Haysom and Jens Söring’s trials! It’s here. They’re complete and already OCR-scanned so you can search for words or phrases. The website is currently under construction, so don’t judge.

Now to the heart of the matter:

There’s a new Team Söring, Team Söring 2.0. The new members include Daniela Hillers, owner of a small publishing house in Hamburg, Germany and Dr. Ralph Guise-Rübe, President of the Hannover Regional Court. I have had occasion to comment on the quirky antics of this odd couple before on this blog.

Working together, they created a newly-released 11-part podcast German-language podcast called “The Case of Jens Söring: A German Judge Rules” (“Der Fall Jens Söring: Ein deutscher Richter urteilt”). It was released at the same time as the three new documentaries about Sörings case, the beginning of November. The podcast seems to be intended to prop up the remnants of Jens Söring’s innocence claims.

When they started this project, Söring, Hillers, and Guise-Rübe probably imagined it would be part of a wave of favorable publicity unleashed by the Netflix documentary. German viewers, having heard Netflix’s case for Söring’s innocence, could download the podcast and hear about even more problems with Söring’s conviction, analyzed by a Real German Judge™. At the end of the podcast, Guise-Rübe “rules”, predictably finding Söring not guilty for lack of evidence. Netflix and this podcast were supposed to fit together hand in glove.

That’s not what happened.

The Netflix documentary did not endorse Söring’s innocence, in fact it did the opposite, painting a clear picture of his guilt. Netflix hired a forensic podiatrist to compare Söring’s foot to the bloody sockprint. She proclaimed it a close match, refuting Guise-Rübe’s unwise claim that the sockprint was “a joke” — a quotation that still appears in the headline of his infamous 2022 interview with the German newspaper Die Welt (more later). As if that weren’t bad enough for Söring (but good for the truth), the German broadcaster NDR released two documentaries, in total almost 2 and 1/2 hours long, which refuted Söring’s innocence claims and revealed serious problems with German journalism on the case.

The podcasters likely got wind that Söring’s existing innocence arguments were not going to survive the November documentaries. They had to come up with fresh spin to undermine the case against Söring. Hard to do with dusty 35-year-old records. Yet Guise-Rübe managed. Unfortunately, his principal new argument is not just wrong, it is deceptive. It is a clear case of lying by omission. Further, it slanders Ricky Gardner. Based on his own deceptive portrayal of the evidence, Guise-Rübe baselessly accuses Gardner of lack of professionalism.

Jens Söring has seduced many otherwise intelligent people to destroy their own reputations in the service of his “campaign for justice”. But getting a sitting German judge to deceive listeners of a podcast and slander an honest cop is a special kind of coup.

Guise-Rübe’s Lie by Omission

Guise-Rübe’s argument, put forward in Episode 3 of the podcast (“The Confession”), is as follows. The first full confession by Jens Söring, which he gave to Ricky Gardner in the late afternoon of 8 July 1986, was preserved only in “handwritten notes” by Gardner. Yet Gardner, Guise-Rübe argues, was biased, because he was under “enormous pressure” to solve the case, which meant he could not be trusted to take reliable notes. The failure to record this confession on tape was a “gigantic mistake” which (somehow magically) taints all further confessions of Söring, even the one he made in German with his own defense lawyer present. The second “gigantic mistake” was the failure to provide Söring with a lawyer during his questioning in London.

Guise-Rübe returns to the subject in the last episode of the podcast, in which he delivers his “verdict” of not guilty. Of course he needs to somehow make all those pesky confessions disappear, so he again accuses Gardner of incompetence, falsely stating that the Haysom murders were Gardner’s “first case”. In fact, Gardner had been on the force for six years.

Guise-Rübe cannot be excused on the basis of ignorance; earlier in the podcast, he assures the listened that he combed through thousands of pages of documents, including the full trial transcripts. Assuming this is true, Guise-Rübe was either unable to understand what he was reading, or chose to deceive listeners.

As for the idea that Söring was denied access to a lawyer, this lie has been exposed a thousand times, on Jens Söring Guilty as Charged, on this blog, in my FAZ articles, by the Wright Report, and now by the ARD and Netflix documentaries. The truth is right there in black and white and on the tapes of the confessions themselves: Söring volunteered to speak to detectives without a lawyer present, over and over. He was informed of his right to speak to a lawyer and waived it over and over, both on tape and on paper. Every time he declined to answer a question until he spoke to the lawyer, the detectives accepted his decision and moved on.

Söring was never denied a lawyer; you cannot be denied something you have not requested.

Guise-Rübe is either lying to listeners to help bolster Söring’s confessions claim or lying about whether he actually read the case record, which contains dozens of written and verbal waivers of counsel by Söring. The only explanation which preserves his reputation for honesty is that he did read the case record, but forgot large chunks of it, or perhaps lacked the English skills to understand it.

Yet Guise-Rübe’s deception about Ricky Gardner’s role is even more blatant. Here are the facts Guise-Rübe leaves out, in order of importance.

Jens Söring Requested His Statement to Gardner not be Recorded

Here is the relevant portion of Ricky Gardner’s trial testimony:

Q: Were Detective Inspector Beever and Detective Constable Wright present during the first portion of the interview?

A: No, sir, they weren't.

Q: And why was that?

A: Because Jens Soering had requested to speak to me alone.

Q: Speak to you alone?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Was this interview on June 8th recorded?

A: No, sir.

Q: Did you take notes of the interview?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And after the interviews were concluded, did you take any measures to preserve those notes?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: How was that?

A: Well we had two — I call it two interviews with Jens Soering, the first part of the interview was Jens and myself, the second part was Jens, myself, Wright and Beever. The three of them [i.e., Söring Wright, and Beever] left the room, I sat down with my dictaphone at the conclusion of that interview and dictated onto a tape what had just been said….

A: On June 8th. 1986, Sergeant Beever advised me at 4:45 p.m. that Jens Soering wished to speak to me alone. I went into Chief Inspector Michael Payton’s office and was sitting there when Jens was brought into the room. Jens sat down, he advised me that he wanted to talk to me alone, and I started to advise him of the Miranda warning as I did before, and he said you don't have to advise me of my rights. He said I understand them, and I want to talk. I asked him could I tape the statement, and he said no, he would not allow me to tape the statement, and he said that I could take some notes.

Guise-Rübe never informs the listener that it was Jens Söring, not Ricky Gardner, who refused to allow the statement to be recorded. Gardner’s actions were not a “gigantic mistake”, they were an effort to respect Jens Söring’s right to speak on his own terms.

Jens Söring Himself Confirmed Under Oath that Gardner’s Notes Were Accurate

Guise-Rübe speculates that Gardner might have taken down inaccurate (or falsified) notes of the interview because he was “biased” and under “enormous pressure” to solve the case. What he withholds from the listener is that we know Gardner’s notes were accurate, because Jens Söring confirmed that they were.

During Söring’s trial, Ricky Gardner read to the jury from the notes he had transcribed from his dictaphone immediately after Söring’s full confession on 8 June. Jens Söring was in the courtroom the entire time, listening carefully to Gardner and taking notes.

When Jens Söring later took the stand, prosecutor Jim Updike read portions of Gardner’s statements and asked Söring to confirm whether they were accurate or not. Söring not only confirmed the accuracy of individual statements, he assured Updike that everything Gardner had earlier told the jury was accurate:

Q: Thank you. Continuing into the interviews, and I discussed some of them with you already, but I’d like to ask you about the June 8th interview. And that’s the summary, the notes of Ricky Gardner that I think you said yesterday you were familiar with, am I correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Now this is the first portion of the interview where only Ricky Gardner is present?

A: Yes.

Q: And just to get an idea of what you said during this interview, whether you agree with the testimony of Investigator Gardner, don't you start out by stating that you went, you went to Loose Chippings on Saturday, March 30, 1985 to visit the Haysoms.

A: Yes, I said that.

Q: And that you arrived at Loose Chippings Saturday evening, Saturday night after dark?

A: Yes, I said more or less everything in this [i.e., Ricky Gardner’s notes].

Q: Do you state then that at this point you remember Mrs. Haysom walking towards the kitchen with her back toward you and that she was holding her neck with both hands?

A: That's what it says.

Q: Did you demonstrate for Investigator Gardner at that point that you meant like this?

A: If he says I did, I did, yes.

Terry Wright and Kenneth Beever also heard Söring Confess and Took Accurate Notes

Ricky Gardner was, of course, eager to confirm what Söring had just told him, as Söring had refused to allow it to be recorded. After a short break, Gardner proposed that Söring repeat his confession before Terry Wright and Kenneth Beever. Söring agreed.

This, by the way, is excellent police work on two levels. First, the additional presence of Wright and Beever guarantees two additional independent witnesses. Second, it is standard police practice to have witnesses repeat their account several times. This helps reveal potential inconsistencies and prevent false confessions, since research reveals that people find it hard to present invented stories the same way over and over again. We can see this in Jens Söring’s case, in which he has changed his own “I confessed to save Elizabeth” story repeatedly.

In the episodes I’ve listened to, Guise-Rübe never informs the reader that Söring’s June 8 confession was heard not only by Guise-Rübe but also by Wright and Beever. By the way, Söring heard both Wright and Beever give sworn testimony about listening to him confess on June 8, 1986, and Söring also has never suggested their account was inaccurate.

Söring had Already Incriminated Himself (and Elizabeth) in Previous Statements

June 8, 1986, was the first time Jens Söring explicitly described murdering the Haysoms in detail. However, even before that, he had made numerous deeply incriminating admissions on tape which would have been more than enough to convict him. In the taped interviews from June 5-7, Söring admits to detectives that:

1. He and Elizabeth had spoken about “murder”.

2. He drove alone to Loose Chippings on the murder night with the intention of killing the Haysoms if they did not agree to stop interfering in his relationship with Elizabeth.

3. He was in Loose Chippings late on the evening of March 30th along with the severely wounded bodies of Derek and Nancy Haysom, who were “probably” dead.

4. He knew where the bodies were located, drawing a sketch which showed their location accurately except for Derek Haysom’s body being rotated 90°.

5. The letters and diary entries detectives had located and read were “incredibly damning”.

6. He had disposed of his bloody clothing after the crime and, as a result, had ridden the elevator in the Marriott Hotel without pants on. At the time, Söring believed these cameras were recorded and that detectives either had the recordings or could easily locate them.

Even if Söring had stopped talking on June 7, 1986, after his last taped statement, what he had admitted to that point on tape would have been more than enough to convict him. The June 8th confession — and all the rest — were just the icing on the cake.

As we found out, at the very latest, from Amanda Knox, Söring is terrified of me — in fact, so scared he seems to believe my name has occult power, since he has literally never mentioned it in public. When Söring even suspects that a journalist or supporter or team member may be tempted to communicate with me, he orders them not to engage with me in any way. Judge Guise-Rübe has obeyed Söring’s orders, refusing to engage in any contact with me.

As you can see in the NDR documentary, he also refused to answer my questions in person in December 2022, even though audience members later told me they were very interested in his answers. He refuses to even acknowledge my existence. He also seems to believe my name may summon demons, because in the podcast episodes I have heard so far, he also refuses to mention it.

Conclusion

Ralph Guise-Rübe learned from me, without acknowledging it. On this blog, I criticized his error-filled December 2022 interview in Die Welt — in which he claimed American judges have little interest in the truth and law enforcement often frames innocent people. Although he never contacted me (obeying Söring’s orders), he seems to have read my blog entry, since his tone in the podcast is much more restrained than in the Welt article, which could have been written by an East German judge.

Yet Guise-Rübe’s subdued “just-asking-questions” tone conceals a clear agenda: to raise questions about Söring’s conviction and attack the American criminal justice system. As this post has revealed, he is willing to go even further, presenting the audience of the podcast with a version of the facts so selective and distorted that it must be the product either of recklessness or deceit.

Either way, this podcast reveals character traits — sloppiness, biased thinking, selective presentation of evidence — which are incompatible with the judicial profession in any country. The final irony is that, following Söring’s lead, Guise-Rübe also raises many unfounded insinuations about a fellow judge (now deceased), William Sweeney, the judge who presided over Jens Söring’s trial.

Physician, heal thyself.