It was Neaton's main strategy and obligation to get Soering's confession not in front of the jury. So Soering's story of force and pressure to confess was only a further part of this story presented in the pre-trial-hearings. As judge Sweeney had judged this as a lie, it was obsolet in the main trial.
If Soering has to tell the truth he has to tell us what had happened to the Manila envelope consisting Derek's tax declarations postmarked in DC on April the first, in 1985. And why Elizabeth had panicked about this letter in front of her brother while joining him at a hotel for the memorial service. They both had been expected for the murder weekend by the Haysoms. Soering had kept silence about it in his interviews.
He has to tell us, how he had managed wearing sneakers which had been too short for his feet!
He has to explain why Nancy Haysom did not use the steak knife - which had lain in front of her at the table - to defend herself and her husband. And why is there no drinking glass of her at the table but there is one in the kitchen. Further secret: Blood swirls in the kitchen in direction to the back door? This could also indicate an attack from the back door!
We have no answer for missing or wrong blood splashes at the table or Derek's seat being consistent with attacking Derek from behind in his seat.
He has also to explain why he didn't admit using the shower and why there
had been no blood in the car although bleeding profunsely at the dumpster.
I would like to know why there had been still so many leftovers in the kitchen - especially ham. Was he a vegetarian? Or was it a fairy tale to have dinner with the Haysoms?
Why was Soering part of a staged time line written by Christine Kim and staging phone calls in which Elizabeth would had asked for her card number even if Soering had driven her to jevelery shops in which she made a lot of cash.
But the most serious are, how could he write her the following ....
-"the American cops have nothing serious against them" before his confession
-that she would only become a small sentence for putting her in a cinema creating a murder alibi
- being pissed off if she would have taken the blame as he knew that two had been at the scene, which he had admitted also in his last confession!
This case has still its miracles by unanswered questions which all make a single killer version nonsense. And Soering really knows it better!
It was Neaton's main strategy and obligation to get Soering's confession not in front of the jury. So Soering's story of force and pressure to confess was only a further part of this story presented in the pre-trial-hearings. As judge Sweeney had judged this as a lie, it was obsolet in the main trial.
If Soering has to tell the truth he has to tell us what had happened to the Manila envelope consisting Derek's tax declarations postmarked in DC on April the first, in 1985. And why Elizabeth had panicked about this letter in front of her brother while joining him at a hotel for the memorial service. They both had been expected for the murder weekend by the Haysoms. Soering had kept silence about it in his interviews.
He has to tell us, how he had managed wearing sneakers which had been too short for his feet!
He has to explain why Nancy Haysom did not use the steak knife - which had lain in front of her at the table - to defend herself and her husband. And why is there no drinking glass of her at the table but there is one in the kitchen. Further secret: Blood swirls in the kitchen in direction to the back door? This could also indicate an attack from the back door!
We have no answer for missing or wrong blood splashes at the table or Derek's seat being consistent with attacking Derek from behind in his seat.
He has also to explain why he didn't admit using the shower and why there
had been no blood in the car although bleeding profunsely at the dumpster.
I would like to know why there had been still so many leftovers in the kitchen - especially ham. Was he a vegetarian? Or was it a fairy tale to have dinner with the Haysoms?
Why was Soering part of a staged time line written by Christine Kim and staging phone calls in which Elizabeth would had asked for her card number even if Soering had driven her to jevelery shops in which she made a lot of cash.
But the most serious are, how could he write her the following ....
-"the American cops have nothing serious against them" before his confession
-that she would only become a small sentence for putting her in a cinema creating a murder alibi
- being pissed off if she would have taken the blame as he knew that two had been at the scene, which he had admitted also in his last confession!
This case has still its miracles by unanswered questions which all make a single killer version nonsense. And Soering really knows it better!