New Article Quoting Me Appears in the Südwest-Presse

Two and a half cheers for Caroline Strang, a reporter who actually contacted Söring's critics and let them speak.

The first part of this post contains a few portions of a recent article, translated here by me, exclusively for the purpose of fair comment on a matter of public importance. The second contains some analysis and context of this piece.

Summary of the Article and My Comments in It

A few months ago I had a nice phone conversation with Caroline Strang of the Ulm-based newspaper Südwest Presse. The article has now been published as a “Page 4” feature (paywalled) entitled “Jens Söring saß 33 Jahre lang im Gefängnis - und kämpft um seine Version der Wahrheit” (“Jens Söring sat in Prison for 33 Years — And now Fights for his Version of the Truth”). Overall the article contains the usual information about Jens Söring: Conviction, release, new life in Germany. Söring says he is “particularly proud” of his coaching business, in which people in “difficult situations” come to him for advice.

After this brief introduction, Strang asks Söring what he thinks of critics of his story. He “avoids giving a direct answer”, instead blandly affirming that it’s nice to live in a democracy where people can state their opinions. (It sure is!) The article then turns to me, describing me as a former death row criminal-defense lawyer who now works primarily as a translator. “Hammel says he knows why Söring maintains his innocence: ‘Prisoners know they get no attention from the outside world if they admit their guilt… I’ve spoken with dozens of murderers, many looked me directly in the eye and emotionally insisted they were innocent.’” (I should add that a few of them were. Most weren’t).

Strang asks what my motivation is. I tell her I eventually got fed up with Söring’s distortion of history (Geschichtsklitterung) and decided to do something about it: “Hammel’s voice becomes louder and he starts talking faster: ‘[Söring] has accused and severely defamed many people. All of the detectives were apparently corrupt or incompetent, the judge, the lawyers, etc. Söring is now facing the revenge of people who he has falsely accused (angeschwärzt). He’s no longer in prison, and must take responsibility for what he says.’”

Strang asks whether I’ve ever spoken to Söring. I say no, but I have read most of the 2.5 million words or so he has written about his case and the US and its justice system: “‘There’s no need to talk to him.’” Hammel is sure of one thing: “‘Most of the people who support him know very little about his case, including the judge.’” This, of course, is a reference to Judge Ralph Guise-Rübe, President of the Hannover Regional Court. Strang also talked to Guise-Rübe, who says he has “no opinion” on whether Söring is guilty or not, but thinks a German court would have acquitted Söring based on the evidence, since in Germany, doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused (the same applies in the USA, of course).

Guise-Rübe then says something interesting: “One could have formulated the doubts like this: I don’t think Söring was capable of this. He might be capable of drowning a fly in soup, but not of slitting someone’s throat. If he had to kill, he would have done it with a gun or a knife to the heart.” Strang notes that reactions to Guise-Rübe’s statements were mixed. Guise-Rübe says “My impression is that the facts (Sachebene) are no longer so much in the foreground, having given way to subjective opinions.” Given his “fly in soup” comment, I can certainly agree. Strang notes that I claim to have provided Guise-Rübe with detailed critiques of his comments about the case (I indeed did just that): “[Guise-Rübe], Hammel says, never responded: ‘I criticized him [i.e., his arguments] harshly, and he never responded.’” Indeed he did not!

Strang then contacted Johanna Behre and Katharina Rahn, two producers of the podcast Das System Söring, which has now been downloaded 1.4 million times. Behre says: “During the 18 months to two years we researched the case, we became aware of discrepancies between the version which Söring and many media put forward and the case files and witness statements.” The podcast was intended to “complement and to a certain extent correct the record”. How do the producers respond to the accusation that the podcast is one-sided and motivated by a political agenda? “That’s incorrect,” Behre says, “we wanted to feature Söring and other interested parties. All of our efforts, however, were for naught.”

Behre claims the interview request to Söring was never answered, Söring said he never received one. I can confirm based on the evidence of my own eyes that one was sent to him, and that the podcast producers were ready, willing, and eager to give Söring and his supporters considerable time to put their case. Katharina Rahn also notes that the podcast does not take a definitive stance as to Söring’s guilt, and notes that there are still doubts in the case. However, she observes, the most interesting aspect of the case is not whether Söring is guilty or not, but all the events surrounding the case: The celebrity supporters, the political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, questions of journalistic practice and ethics, etc.

Söring is then quoted as saying he understands people will always have doubts and that he is nevertheless not “running away” from his past. Strang asked me what I wish for Söring. and I responded “cynically”: “A long life, a job as translator, editor, or barista, and a successful relationship which doesn’t end in murder.” I don’t remember putting it quite that way, but sure, I’ll accept it. As to whether it’s “cynical” to mention murder in this context, that depends on whether Söring’s first relationship in fact did end in him murdering two people. Since it did end that way, it would seem logical to mention it. Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but I consider double-murder a pretty big deal, and I would generally would prefer as few people as possible be murdered. But that’s just my personal opinion!

Analysis and Context

Almost half of this article is given over to critics of Söring’s innocence claims, which can’t be pleasing Söring. The piece, I hope, reflects the new normal in two ways. First, everyone now knows that Söring’s claims are contested. That genie is out of the bottle and will never go back in. Second, it’s not just one lone crank from Düsseldorf who disputes his version. Thousands of people have been convinced by The Söring System that Söring’s version of events is inaccurate, and that Söring and his supporters have has used questionable methods to advance his claims.

The article also makes clear that Söring’s defenders avoid debate and discussion. The producers of The Söring System contacted everyone whose statements or journalism are challenged in the podcast and were prepared to give them generous time to state their case; they all refused. I have offered to debate Söring and any and all of his supporters in any forum, in any language, none has ever agreed to do so. I reached out to Guise-Rübe and offered to debate him on Söring’s case and shared with him several sources he seems not to have consulted, but received no substantive answer. I then publicly critiqued his comments on the case and renewed my offer to debate him in German in any forum of his choosing, but he never responded. The debate offer, of course, still stands. I’d be happy to share a stage with Guise-Rübe (and Söring) and debate them, in German, on Söring’s guilt and on their statements about the U.S. justice system.

All in all, I thought this was a responsible piece. The overall framing leaves a little to be desired — to an extent, Söring is portrayed as just guy trying to state “his” version of the “truth”, while all these other people harass him. In fact, Söring sued me for libel and has also taken retaliatory steps against other critics of his stories, so he’s hardly the hapless victim. Also, by definition, “truth” doesn’t come in “versions”. Moon-landing hoaxers have their version of the “truth”, but it’s not the one any of us should pay attention to.

On the positive side, it’s good to see Strang taking an important question seriously: Did Jens Söring in fact stab two people to death? Dozens of articles have simply brushed this aside. Again, call me a hidebound reactionary, but I do think it’s rather important for people to keep in mind that Söring stabbed Derek and Nancy Haysom to death, and that his claims to the contrary have long since been exposed as lies and distortions. After establishing the accurate historical record in this manner, journalists should feel free to quiz Söring about his jogging habits or favorite fruits or literary tastes.

First the truth, then the human-interest story. Is that too much to ask?