Rheinische Post journalist Susanne Zolke joins the Onoda Society

On the one hand, a mountain of evidence. On the other hand, a handful of holdouts, hoping against hope.

The Onoda Society

Hiroo Onoda was a Japanese intelligence officer stationed in the Philippines during World War II. After the war ended, Onoda, along with a handful of others, spent 29 years hiding in the Philippines, believing the war might still be ongoing. They hid in caves, foraged for food, and ate whatever they could find. They read leaflets dropped by airplanes explaining that the war was over, but distrusted them as potential Allied propaganda. Onoda refused to surrender until 1974, when his former superior officer flew to the Philippines, convinced him the war was in fact over, and ordered him to surrender. Onoda was the most famous, but there were other Japanese holdouts who either did not know World War II had ended or refused to surrender.

The number of German journalists willing to believe Jens Söring’s might be innocent has now dwindled to a handful. Even 33 years after his conviction — and a barrage of re-investigations of his case which have only reinforced proof of his guilt — they crouch in the back corners of German editorial offices, surviving on snails and salamanders (metaphorically), either refusing to acknowledge or refusing to believe the evidence confirming Jens Söring’s guilt. While the rest of the world moves on — most German news outlets now accurately refer to Söring as a “double-murderer” — the holdouts continue to hope against hope that maybe, just maybe, Jens Söring might actually be innocent, as he claims. The outlook is grim, the evidence is clear, the case is closed — but maybe it will turn out he is telling the truth. By this time it will take a miracle to undo all the evidence against Söring. But hope, as the German saying goes, dies last.

What can these journalist do in the meantime? They can keep the door open for that miracle by portraying Söring’s guilt as an open question. It isn’t, of course, but they can claim it is, and thus keep that faint flicker alive.

I hereby proclaim the foundation of a new club: The Onoda Society. It is open to any German journalist or commentator who is still, at this very late date, willing to portray the Söring case as subject to genuine doubt. That club includes hapless jurist Ralph Guise-Rübe, Welt reporter Katja Mitic, and now Rheinische Post reporter Susanne Zolke.

The 179th Article Reprinting Söring’s Discredited Claims

Jens Söring has been quiet this last month — no new TikTok or YouTube videos or articles. One might have gotten the idea that he had made the sensible decision to retire into private life. But apparently not! Susanne Zolke, an editor at the Rheinische Post (my hometown newspaper), has just come out with an article (g) which, like so many, could have been written by Söring himself. The piece seems to have been based on an interview from Söring’s time in Cologne one month ago, since Zolke writes that Söring is “on a book tour in the Rhineland” — a geographic description which, much to everyone’s regret, includes the city of Cologne.¹

Most of the interview is old stuff that has already been addressed in dozens of newspaper articles before: Söring is now living in his own apartment in Germany, likes to jog, wrote a book, enjoys life in freedom, works as a life-coach for “resilience” and a speaker, managed to obtain his freedom and is now fighting to clear his name (he uses the somewhat odd phrase “I want my face back”), etc. Zolke writes:

Many documentaries were created, along with newspaper articles and a movie about his case. The majority of them regard his case as a miscarriage of justice, the debate about his guilt or innocence rages to this day, various studies by legal experts come to different conclusions.

I would say this passage can be translated as “lots of people have written long, complicated reports and books about this case which I couldn’t be bothered to read.”

Mistakes and Missing Context

We then encounter the first factual error. She writes that Söring was sentenced to two life prison terms and writes: “In the USA even one life sentence means: Until the end of your life". First of all, the USA has 52 separate criminal justice systems, so this sentence makes as much sense as saying: “In Europe, a murder conviction means 25 years in prison”. Second, as I’ve pointed out before, the average persons convicted of murder in the United State actually serves about 15 years in prison before being released, which isn’t that much longer than the average murder convict serves in Germany. Söring himself was eligible for parole and, of course, got it.

Zolke then recounts Söring’s version of events, using “indirect speech”, which signals the reader that she is only recounting what Söring said, not making factual assertions. Zolke reports that Söring believed his father’s status as a diplomat would protect him, but doesn’t fact-check this assertion, which is disproven by Söring’s own statements from 1985, where he admits he knows that he has no protected diplomatic status. Zolke then describes Söring’s hasty departure from the United States, without mentioning that the purpose of the flight was to escape having to give police fingerprint, blood, and foot-impression samples.

When Söring is arrested in 1986, Zolke writes: “Jens keeps his promise: He confesses to the double-murder of the Haysoms.” This is not written in “indirect speech”, Zolke asserts it as actually what happened. Zolke is wrong, of course, no promise was ever made, and Söring immediately implicated Elizabeth Haysom in the murders, exposing her to a life sentence. Zolke then says that Söring’s assumption that his status as a diplomat’s son would protect him proved to be wrong. Again, false: Söring’s own words (g) prove he never believed this.

The errors continue: “At the very beginning of his jury trial, which was a major event for the small city of Bedford, Jens recanted his confession.” This is incomplete and factually wrong. First, Zolke fails to mention that Söring’s first attempt to escape his detailed confessions was to accuse British detective Kenneth Beever of threatening to assault Elizabeth Haysom if Söring didn’t confess. Only when the Virginia judge ruled Söring had lied under oath about this did Söring suddenly switch his story to the “I made a promise to Elizabeth” — a story he had never mentioned to anyone before. Further, he didn’t recant his confession at the beginning of his trial, he did so during his own testimony, which happened at the end of the trial.

Sorry, the Case is still Closed

Only now, halfway through the article, does Zolke hint that she’s paid attention to recent developments in the case. She mentions that the “journalist Stefan Niggemeier has complained (g) that German media have adopted Söring’s ‘narrative’ largely without criticism and enabled him to have an ‘astounding media career’, without questioning his story or confronting him with inconsistencies.” Now, of course, is when you would expect a fearless, skeptical journalist — they are supposed to be fearless and skeptical, right? — to actually, you know, confront Söring with inconsistencies.

Nope! Zolke marches right on in a new paragraph: “Soring says himself that he made a conscious decision to go on the offensive…. He doesn’t want to avoid the topic of his guilt, but instead wants to talk about it.” So, er, why not actually talk with him about it? Hmm, better not. He might get nervous. The article ends with the standard cliches used by journalists who can’t be bothered to research the case. Under the heading “After almost 40 years, the question of Söring’s guilt remains open”, Zolke writes: “Whether he was justly convicted 37 years ago for murdering the Haysoms or not is something only Jens Söring or likely Elizabeth Haysom know — or perhaps a completely different culprit.”

Let me give my standard response to pieces like this. First of all, Zolke, like so many other journalists, doesn’t actually seem to care whether Jens Söring stabbed two innocent people to death. Odd, that. There is a definitive answer to this question. That answer is “yes”. Jens Söring was convicted on proof beyond a reasonable doubt by twelve jurors. after a fair trial in which he was given an opportunity to put forward his side of the story. His conviction was upheld by every appeals court. He was released on parole because the parole board, after a “years-long” search for the truth, determined his claims were meritless.

One of the detectives who heard Söring’s detailed confessions re-examined the case and wrote a 450-page report demonstrating Söring’s manifest, obvious guilt.

Zolke doesn’t mention it.

A retired German detective wrote an even longer book about the case demonstrating Söring’s manifest, obvious guilt.

Zolke doesn’t mention it.

A 9-part podcast examined Söring’s case and demonstrated his manifest, obvious guilt.

Zolke doesn’t mention it.

Even in German news outlets, Söring is now accurately referred to as the “double murderer” he is, without reservation or qualification.

Once again, because the truth matters: Jens Söring murdered Derek and Nancy Haysom. Overwhelming evidence establishes this fact. There never was any doubt, and never will be.

World War II is over, and the Allies won.

The bad news is that even at this very late date, there are still German journalists willing to write puff-pieces like this about Söring’s “crusade for justice” and to dismiss the question of whether he actually murdered the Haysoms as an impenetrable mystery which will plague mankind until the end of days. The good news is that they are getting more and more rare.

The Onoda Society celebrates the recent admission of Susanne Zolke and remains open for new members. I’m sure some clueless German journalist, somewhere, will join. Who will it be?

1. Sorry, it had to be done.