"Small Town, Big Crime": Jens Söring Refuses Reliable, Bipartisan Plan for DNA Testing
Even the prosecution is willing to cooperate with new DNA testing, and only Söring is standing in the way. Why?
"He is your biggest fan when he thinks you’re on his side, but the minute he thinks you’re not, then whew — you’re the devil incarnate.” — Chip Harding (possibly Richard Hudson)
The final episodes of the podcast Small Town, Big Crime have just been released. The takeaway: Plenty of evidence remains in the Jens Söring case which can now be tested with cutting-edge techniques to yield reliable results. A plan for testing with the lab recommended by Söring’s own DNA expert was conceived. The prosecution signed off on the request.
And after six months, Jens Söring has refused to even say “yes” or “no” to testing. He won’t even answer the question.
The background:
The podcasters obtained access to new investigative files and to the evidence, where they discovered many pieces of evidence which have never been tested for DNA, including a hair with roots, beer cans in the master bedroom trash can, and biological samples from the victims.
Assisted by their own lawyer, the podcasters spent four months reviewing every single piece of evidence with DNA experts, then prepared a request for DNA testing, which was filed in August 2020 with the Bedford County, Virginia District Court.
After much effort, the podcasters convinced Bedford County District Attorney Wes Nance to file a statement saying he did not object to new DNA testing. He would not file a request himself, but he would state that he had no objection to the journalists’ request.
The podcasters, Nance, and scientists worked together to create a careful testing protocol to ensure reliable, clear results. Evidence which was likely to have been hopelessly contaminated was excluded. An independent evidence technician would seal the items, and send them to the independent lab. The DNA lab, DNA Solutions, was recommended by Jens’ own DNA expert.
The judge on the DNA request, former prosecutor Jim Updike, recused himself from deciding the DNA-test petition. The new judge, relying on Virginia Supreme Court precedent, held that journalists could not request new DNA testing in closed criminal cases. Only the prosecutor or defendant(s) can do this.
The only people who can request the testing were Wes Nance, Jens Söring, and (possibly) Elizabeth Haysom. Nance supported the journalists’ request, but declined to ask for testing himself. This left only Jens Söring or (possibly) Elizabeth Haysom who had legal authority to request the new DNA testing in the case.
The podcasters contacted Söring in the fall of 2021, notifying him that, since the judge said only parties to the case could request DNA testing, and Nance would not do it himself, only he, Jens Söring, could get the new DNA testing. They pointed out their plan had careful procedures to ensure reliability, and that the lab would be the one his own expert had recommended.
Söring enthusiastically agreed, and the results were…
Söring Zooms from a “Darkened Room”
Oh wait, sorry, no he didn’t. This is how he responded (quoting from the final episode: “The Decision”):
“I have no interest in corresponding or speaking with you, or in any new information you claim to have ‘developed’. I will not conduct any kind of interview with you on Monday or any other time. However, I am willing to participate in an audio-only telephone conference call on Monday under certain conditions.” These conditions included the presence of at least one of the [Netflix] filmmakers. Another condition was that the call would not be recorded. And there was one other thing: “I will not speak, I will listen to what you have to say, and if I have a question, I will write it out.”
Söring apparently no longer trusted the podcasters behind Small Town, Big Crime. The reason? Most likely, because they had been contaminated by contact with myself and Terry Wright. As Harding (or Hudson) noted in the quote up top, once you depart from the party line, Söring casts you out of his inner circle. As the podcasters noted, Söring had eagerly collaborated with them throughout summer 2020, sending them tips and leads and promising them that uncovering his “innocence” would make them big stars.
As soon as he learned they had spoken to me and read the Wright report, however, Söring cut off all contact. He only responded to their request for DNA testing after repeated contact attempts, and his response, as you can read above, was peculiar. The podcasters didn’t agree to his conditions, but they agreed to a modified set of terms. Finally, appearing in a “darkened room” on teleconference with many participants, Söring listened to what the podcasters had to say. His responses, under the terms he dictated, could not be recorded, but were paraphrased by the podcasters. Söring said he would review the DNA testing petition, and seemed to be particularly interested in the infamous hair near the sink. He expressed no interest in having the Type O blood tested, but when asked about it, he said he had “his own theories” about who left it.
Hudson and Harding, interviewed by the podcasters, agreed that the 25 items the podcasters, Nance, and the DNA scientists had selected (which didn’t include the victims’ clothes, which were hopelessly contaminated) for new testing might well contain fresh, reliable DNA evidence, and were “ecstatic” about the possibility of new DNA tests. The podcasters, meanwhile, kept contacting Söring, asking him for a simple signature on their petition which would start the DNA testing process. Instead, Söring told them he had sent the DNA testing petitions to his American lawyers. Late January 2022, they wrote him again. “We know how important it is for you to clear your name.” Team Söring said they were still reviewing the documents, and taking the DNA request seriously.
At around this time, the podcasters note, Söring posted a video on Instagram “railing against the American criminal justice system” for never giving him a chance to prove his innocence. The podcasters also note that Söring’s supporters (though not the man himself) had been calling for DNA testing for years, and Söring continuously says in public that he wanted to prove his innocence. Even the prosecutor now supported the request.
Eventually the podcasters had another idea: Elizabeth Haysom might have standing to sign the DNA petition. She wasn’t a defendant in the Söring case, and had already admitted guilt in her case, but it might be possible to convince the judge that she had legal standing to sign the petition. Haysom initially expressed interest in testing, but then declined after reading a communication from Wes Nance in which he explained that he refused to sign the petition himself because he believed there was a strong chance the testing might generate some slightly anomalous result which Team Söring would seize on to claim there were open questions about his case. Apparently concerned by this possibility. Elizabeth decided not to sign the petition.
The podcasters contacted Söring’s American lawyers, Steven Rosenfield and Steven Northup, in mid-April 2022. Here’s what they say, according to the podcast transcript:
Neither attorney agreed to speak with us, and we couldn’t even get a clear answer about whether they’d seen the documents. Rosenfield seemed unfamiliar with the petitions, and Northup said they discussed it, but suggested it was up to Bedford to do the testing. “We do not understand why you’re trying to involve us in your efforts”, he wrote. Jens and his team insist he’s innocent, but won’t pursue testing to prove it.
There’s much more to say about these episodes, but a few points are clear:
As I’ve frequently pointed out, Jens Söring himself has never requested DNA testing of the crime-scene evidence. His supporters, naively assuming he must want testing, have asked for it. He never has, and I an certain he never will.
If you’re a prominent supporter of Jens Söring’s innocence claims, these 3 new podcast episodes should raise huge questions marks about his credibility. Perhaps you should re-consider your options.
Wes Nance seems like an honest, sincere guy. However, I think he should man up and ask for the new testing himself. Just do it. There’s no need to worry, Team Söring is a mere shell of its former self.
Anyone can understand why Elizabeth Haysom, who is doing well in her new life, would want to avoid stirring the case up again. However, I think she should reconsider and sign the DNA-testing request. It seems nothing else will convince Söring to stop pushing his innocence story, which keep thrusting her family onto center stage. There is no guarantee the DNA tests will provide certainty. But they could. And, as Wayne Gretzky said, you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.
OK, that’s enough for now. I enjoyed these new episodes, and wish there had been a more definitive conclusion. But if Söring, Nance, or Haysom agree to the new testing, maybe there will be. Stay tuned!
Listening again to a bit of the quixotic theory of the case contrived by Harding/Hudson, I cannot help but note that I have never heard either of these two small town gangbusters explain how Derek Haysom's tax returns, in a large manilla envelope, were post-marked on the Monday following the crimes in Washington D.C. This meant that the tax returns would have been dropped off in a mailbox somewhere in the D.C. area over the weekend. This envelope was entered into evidence and was something that had to be given real consideration by the jury. I have held this envelope in my hands. ( I suppose that means that there is a chance that my DNA is on it.) How did these tax returns get to DC.? And why? If ' two men both bleeding', as the Harding/Hudson alternative theory goes, somehow got into that house, they would have had to know about and be interested in getting the tax returns--which apparently were the only thing taken from the crime scene--and they would have had to search for them among Derek Haysom's personal papers or in his desk, and having located them they would have had to make the two hour plus trip to Washington, locate a mail box and drop them off.
Why?
I wish EH would change her mind and request it.