The odd thing is that even if Jens had NOT left the bloody footprint(s) and they had gone on a longer trip on Sunday, say over to the Eastern Shore, and brought the car in late with many more miles added to the odometer, there was still the problem of fingerprints. He could not be sure he had not left a fingerprint, or even a fingerprint in blood. It had been a chaotic melee. He couldn't take the chance. And sooner or later police would have found out from interviews with their fellow students at UVA that Jens was definitely in the picture. Therefore, a routine request for fingerprints from him was inevitable. Automatic, really. He should have known that. There were quite a few people who were asked for prints. Jens prided himself on his intellect. But he actually didn't think the whole thing through. Should have been some other way. Goes to his state of mind. Magical thinking?
Frank: They had no idea that their daughter had become a homicidal psychopath.
You need to explain who signed for room service. The alibi was actually quite elaborate, was it not?
"Elizabeth makes things happen" was one assessment of her from a fellow prisoner at Bedford jail who went to Death Row. He had spent hours talking to her, studying her, essentially sitting on the floor talking through a wall, 'on the vent.' But Elizabeth's MO would be NOT to be there when it does happen. This would include framing a fellow student at Wycombe Abbey, for example, and either ruining or nearly ruining that girl's educational career.
xxxxxxxxx
Hi Frank, concerning the murders I do not believe one word that either Soering or Haysom have said/are saying. It is all mixed up by shifting blame to the other and muddying the water. The most kernel of truth is in what they had written to each other.
Concerning the matter of the manilla envelope stamped on the 1st of April 1985 in DC, I find it quite convincing what Richard had said to the press about his half-sister and her freaking reaction towards the letter matter. He is absolutely right in pointing out that the person who brought it to the post office took part in the killing. Haysom's reaction showed guilt.
In the meanwhile, I am absolutely convinced that the finesse part of their killing weekend was to establish an alibi which only looked like somebody had being stayed in DC. This would be very easy to arrange. For example: going to the movies and see porkies on Friday and connecting with the ticket seller after the movies e.g. inventing a story for getting two tickets with following numbers upfront (for the movie on Saturday at 10 pm). The movie on about 5 pm they bought 30 minutes before. Now the CONCLUSION: Both made false excuses for just buying one ticket for rocky horror picture. (Haysom no money ->wrong (sold jewels)/Soering angry ->wrong, he should be worried about her that the drug deal went wrong). The next connect is the room service which they had for breakfast on Saturday morning. So they arranged a delivery for the evening, based on a story (e.g. whole day trip, return in the evening) and signed upfront. They should bring it in according to their absence! Well that's all! Haysom did nothing to enable a credible alibi in an active way. The opposite was the case. No corroborating evidence for her statements (calling Beth or Kim, in real seeing no movies, buying and using drugs, ordering and drinking Jack Daniels in the hotel room, showering and signing room service and paying with credit card). NOT ONE. On the other side Soering who was telling bullshit in the murderplot of a single killer without premiditation, as they had planned and murdered the Haysoms by overwhelming them. You can clearly see the traces of blood way to the outside hall from the kitchen. This is where the attack of Nancy had started. Not in the dining room. The fact that Nancy's glas is in the kitchen, shows that she had been there. Perhaps she was gooing there for the can of Dr Pepper. There is no glas in the dining room at her seat. So this had been the best moment to attack her from the outside while Soering used the front door. This goes also together with the shoe traces and her cigarette butts!
If they had disabled the odometer while driving to LC and return to DC they would have shown the extra portion of finesse.
Dear Mr. Hammel, thank you very much for posting the whole interview with J.Söring. Now I can see
where the information about the envelope is coming. And also one can see, that there were people who witnessed, that the Haysoms expected E. and J. that weekend.
Everything that concernes the envelope is really mysterious, I think. But also Read and Gardner bring up annother possibility, that E. might have received it before the weekend, even by mail. I ask myself, if she might already have taken it with her on the weekend of her father's birthday, or is that
Elizabeth in her testimony of her guilty plea which meant to diminish her own guilt an put the maximum blame on her ex boyfriend:
AH: Elizabeth described the aftermath of this interview in her 1987 trial testimony:
Q Why did you and Jens leave in October of '85?
A Because Investigator Gardner and Investigator Reid had requested blood samples from Jens.
Q He was getting scared.
A Yes. And as I say, his attitude towards what happened changed as outside--as the investigation was progressing. And when he discovered that Investigator Gardner wasn't as stupid as he thought he was and that he couldn't just talk his way out of a situation as serious as this.
xxxxxxxxxxx
Well Andrew this is so cute and you don't miss any event to let her shine....
In a 1989 interview Haysom stated that her brother had a tone of being suspicious on her. And that her brother forced her hand, and she made a pure act of cowardice.
One year later at the Soering trial she got her punishment and was more free to speak. She knew that the fullfillment of her wish, that she came back to the US to plea guilty only if Soering will get the same punishment is becoming real.
So in cross examination with Neaton she had to admit the following:
Q: Well you knew you were suspected of some complicity in your parents' deaths in September of 1985 when you were asked to give blood and footprint samples, right?
A: Of course, I knew I would be a suspect, and I knew I was considered a suspect, and so was Jens.
Q: At that time, though, you didn't know the test results of the blood or the footprint analysis, did you?
A: Well in September they had just been given, so –
Q: And when you left the country in October of 1985, you did not know the results of those tests, did you?
A: No, I did not, sir.
Q: Now also in October of 1985, you said that You had received a telephone call from your brother, is that right?
A: That is correct.
Q: And it was after the telephone call from your brother that you decided that you're going to go and Join Jens, is that right?
A: That's correct.
Q: I call your attention to the diary, which is Commonwealth's Exhibit 44, and I call your attention to the October 12th entry that you made in this diary, I'll point to it right there. Now in your diary, the part that You wrote, you said that you began packing to leave before your brother called you, right?
A: That's correct.
Q: So you had already decided to leave before he called you, correct?
A: No, sir.
Q: Oh, you were packing Just in case you might decide to leave?
A: No, sir. If you recall, this diary was written in retrospect with Jens, and at that time Jens did not know the reason why I had stayed behind was to think things out for myself.
And so of course I had to write in here that I had begun packing before I considered packing.
Q: So that was a lie in the diary?
A: There are a great many lies in many of these diaries.
Q: And they were deliberately put in there by you in that October 12th entry?
A: I don't understand.
Q: You intentionally wrote what you did in the October 12th entry to deceive Jens, right?
A: It was a continuance of a deception, yes.
So funfact...this sounds very different from being a suspect which is not a supect as given everything in free will cause she was not at the scene....but having an attourney 😀
Bruno,
The odd thing is that even if Jens had NOT left the bloody footprint(s) and they had gone on a longer trip on Sunday, say over to the Eastern Shore, and brought the car in late with many more miles added to the odometer, there was still the problem of fingerprints. He could not be sure he had not left a fingerprint, or even a fingerprint in blood. It had been a chaotic melee. He couldn't take the chance. And sooner or later police would have found out from interviews with their fellow students at UVA that Jens was definitely in the picture. Therefore, a routine request for fingerprints from him was inevitable. Automatic, really. He should have known that. There were quite a few people who were asked for prints. Jens prided himself on his intellect. But he actually didn't think the whole thing through. Should have been some other way. Goes to his state of mind. Magical thinking?
Frank: They had no idea that their daughter had become a homicidal psychopath.
You need to explain who signed for room service. The alibi was actually quite elaborate, was it not?
"Elizabeth makes things happen" was one assessment of her from a fellow prisoner at Bedford jail who went to Death Row. He had spent hours talking to her, studying her, essentially sitting on the floor talking through a wall, 'on the vent.' But Elizabeth's MO would be NOT to be there when it does happen. This would include framing a fellow student at Wycombe Abbey, for example, and either ruining or nearly ruining that girl's educational career.
xxxxxxxxx
Hi Frank, concerning the murders I do not believe one word that either Soering or Haysom have said/are saying. It is all mixed up by shifting blame to the other and muddying the water. The most kernel of truth is in what they had written to each other.
Concerning the matter of the manilla envelope stamped on the 1st of April 1985 in DC, I find it quite convincing what Richard had said to the press about his half-sister and her freaking reaction towards the letter matter. He is absolutely right in pointing out that the person who brought it to the post office took part in the killing. Haysom's reaction showed guilt.
In the meanwhile, I am absolutely convinced that the finesse part of their killing weekend was to establish an alibi which only looked like somebody had being stayed in DC. This would be very easy to arrange. For example: going to the movies and see porkies on Friday and connecting with the ticket seller after the movies e.g. inventing a story for getting two tickets with following numbers upfront (for the movie on Saturday at 10 pm). The movie on about 5 pm they bought 30 minutes before. Now the CONCLUSION: Both made false excuses for just buying one ticket for rocky horror picture. (Haysom no money ->wrong (sold jewels)/Soering angry ->wrong, he should be worried about her that the drug deal went wrong). The next connect is the room service which they had for breakfast on Saturday morning. So they arranged a delivery for the evening, based on a story (e.g. whole day trip, return in the evening) and signed upfront. They should bring it in according to their absence! Well that's all! Haysom did nothing to enable a credible alibi in an active way. The opposite was the case. No corroborating evidence for her statements (calling Beth or Kim, in real seeing no movies, buying and using drugs, ordering and drinking Jack Daniels in the hotel room, showering and signing room service and paying with credit card). NOT ONE. On the other side Soering who was telling bullshit in the murderplot of a single killer without premiditation, as they had planned and murdered the Haysoms by overwhelming them. You can clearly see the traces of blood way to the outside hall from the kitchen. This is where the attack of Nancy had started. Not in the dining room. The fact that Nancy's glas is in the kitchen, shows that she had been there. Perhaps she was gooing there for the can of Dr Pepper. There is no glas in the dining room at her seat. So this had been the best moment to attack her from the outside while Soering used the front door. This goes also together with the shoe traces and her cigarette butts!
If they had disabled the odometer while driving to LC and return to DC they would have shown the extra portion of finesse.
Dear Mr. Hammel, thank you very much for posting the whole interview with J.Söring. Now I can see
where the information about the envelope is coming. And also one can see, that there were people who witnessed, that the Haysoms expected E. and J. that weekend.
Everything that concernes the envelope is really mysterious, I think. But also Read and Gardner bring up annother possibility, that E. might have received it before the weekend, even by mail. I ask myself, if she might already have taken it with her on the weekend of her father's birthday, or is that
impossible? There maybe an explananation for it.
Elizabeth in her testimony of her guilty plea which meant to diminish her own guilt an put the maximum blame on her ex boyfriend:
AH: Elizabeth described the aftermath of this interview in her 1987 trial testimony:
Q Why did you and Jens leave in October of '85?
A Because Investigator Gardner and Investigator Reid had requested blood samples from Jens.
Q He was getting scared.
A Yes. And as I say, his attitude towards what happened changed as outside--as the investigation was progressing. And when he discovered that Investigator Gardner wasn't as stupid as he thought he was and that he couldn't just talk his way out of a situation as serious as this.
xxxxxxxxxxx
Well Andrew this is so cute and you don't miss any event to let her shine....
In a 1989 interview Haysom stated that her brother had a tone of being suspicious on her. And that her brother forced her hand, and she made a pure act of cowardice.
One year later at the Soering trial she got her punishment and was more free to speak. She knew that the fullfillment of her wish, that she came back to the US to plea guilty only if Soering will get the same punishment is becoming real.
So in cross examination with Neaton she had to admit the following:
Q: Well you knew you were suspected of some complicity in your parents' deaths in September of 1985 when you were asked to give blood and footprint samples, right?
A: Of course, I knew I would be a suspect, and I knew I was considered a suspect, and so was Jens.
Q: At that time, though, you didn't know the test results of the blood or the footprint analysis, did you?
A: Well in September they had just been given, so –
Q: And when you left the country in October of 1985, you did not know the results of those tests, did you?
A: No, I did not, sir.
Q: Now also in October of 1985, you said that You had received a telephone call from your brother, is that right?
A: That is correct.
Q: And it was after the telephone call from your brother that you decided that you're going to go and Join Jens, is that right?
A: That's correct.
Q: I call your attention to the diary, which is Commonwealth's Exhibit 44, and I call your attention to the October 12th entry that you made in this diary, I'll point to it right there. Now in your diary, the part that You wrote, you said that you began packing to leave before your brother called you, right?
A: That's correct.
Q: So you had already decided to leave before he called you, correct?
A: No, sir.
Q: Oh, you were packing Just in case you might decide to leave?
A: No, sir. If you recall, this diary was written in retrospect with Jens, and at that time Jens did not know the reason why I had stayed behind was to think things out for myself.
And so of course I had to write in here that I had begun packing before I considered packing.
Q: So that was a lie in the diary?
A: There are a great many lies in many of these diaries.
Q: And they were deliberately put in there by you in that October 12th entry?
A: I don't understand.
Q: You intentionally wrote what you did in the October 12th entry to deceive Jens, right?
A: It was a continuance of a deception, yes.
So funfact...this sounds very different from being a suspect which is not a supect as given everything in free will cause she was not at the scene....but having an attourney 😀