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.
Hi Frank, you are right. This letter was also a greater part of the interview that Gardner made with Soering. It is a very interesting piece of evidence, cause it matters who had licked it together AND there had been testimonies which confirmed that Elizabeth and Jens had been expected for a visit on the murder weekend by the Haysoms. Cause Elizabeth job was to write this letter and pick it up. It is not really credible that Soering talked to, ate with, fight with and finally murdered two people, forgot that he left blood on the door handle but instead he took the letter from LC to DC. Andrew missed that completely in analyzing Soering's interview from October 1985.
I know nothing about the tax returns. You seem to be insiders of the time of 1990. Is it true, that E. and J. were expected for a visit on the murder weekend by the Haysoms ?
And that E. should write a letter for the tax returns for her parents and pick it up ? Why
couldn't the Haysoms not do that by themselves ? Are there no mail boxes in Bedford?
I agree to Bruno that it would not be credible that the murderer took this envelope and
drop it in a mail box in Washington. Could you please explain that issue for me and other (German) readers, who have not heard about it ?
I am not familiar with the content of the envelope but the destination was Veryan Haysom in Nova Scotia who is still a lawyer. It would be very interesting what the police asked Elizabeth concerning the letter. To correct you. I mean single murderer Soering won't take the letter with him, but Haysom also at the scene could think it is better to mail it to Veryan. It might had any advantage for her.
That would be indeed very interesting, to know what the police has asked her about that letter. Like Francis Wheatley wrote, that it was taken into the
evidence and seen by the jury, it must have been at Sörings trial, because E. had no jury. It would be interesting to know who were the people who said,
that E. and J. were expected at the Haysoms, and when that should have happened with the letter. Could it not have been, that E. took the letter the
weekend before, when her father had birthday, with her and forgot to mail it
until that weekend in Washington ? It makes to me absolutely no sense and
I cannot imagine, that she would have had an advantage by posting the letter, if she would have been at the crime scene. It would rather be a proof that she was there. Maybe A.Hammel could say something about it.
The first person indeed to ask this would be Dr. Howard Haysom. As you know he was cut off in his examinations by Updike and Davis during Haysom's guilty plea at the point where he wanted to give his arguments for not going with the state attourney's theory but placing Elizabeth in the house during the crime. He also knew well about this letter. As I do not know any public opinions mentioned e.g. in interviews by him I would be very interrested about what the investigators had written down by interviewing him. Small town big crime should have access to that, now.
Well cause of the great efforts of STBC we can keep this short and simple.
1) There was a time in which your firm argument was the DNA Retesting is useless and nonsense. Or in other words. What happened to you since yesterday??!!
2) it is quite odd that Haysom's voice comes permanently through her cousin. So her own attitude is only transferred. And I do not understand her decision. She could convince a lot of people even in her own family!
The idea to investigate the 3 beer cans (inside) out of the master bedroom for DNA is a great idea.
From my contact with Soering, he couldn't even remember those 3 beer cans. Beer cans and drinking on the drive to LC was a part of his confession.
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?
Hi Frank, you are right. This letter was also a greater part of the interview that Gardner made with Soering. It is a very interesting piece of evidence, cause it matters who had licked it together AND there had been testimonies which confirmed that Elizabeth and Jens had been expected for a visit on the murder weekend by the Haysoms. Cause Elizabeth job was to write this letter and pick it up. It is not really credible that Soering talked to, ate with, fight with and finally murdered two people, forgot that he left blood on the door handle but instead he took the letter from LC to DC. Andrew missed that completely in analyzing Soering's interview from October 1985.
Bruno,
Have you spoken to anyone who has theories about who may or may not have licked the manilla envelope to seal it?
Hi Francis Wheatley and Bruno K,
I know nothing about the tax returns. You seem to be insiders of the time of 1990. Is it true, that E. and J. were expected for a visit on the murder weekend by the Haysoms ?
And that E. should write a letter for the tax returns for her parents and pick it up ? Why
couldn't the Haysoms not do that by themselves ? Are there no mail boxes in Bedford?
I agree to Bruno that it would not be credible that the murderer took this envelope and
drop it in a mail box in Washington. Could you please explain that issue for me and other (German) readers, who have not heard about it ?
I am not familiar with the content of the envelope but the destination was Veryan Haysom in Nova Scotia who is still a lawyer. It would be very interesting what the police asked Elizabeth concerning the letter. To correct you. I mean single murderer Soering won't take the letter with him, but Haysom also at the scene could think it is better to mail it to Veryan. It might had any advantage for her.
That would be indeed very interesting, to know what the police has asked her about that letter. Like Francis Wheatley wrote, that it was taken into the
evidence and seen by the jury, it must have been at Sörings trial, because E. had no jury. It would be interesting to know who were the people who said,
that E. and J. were expected at the Haysoms, and when that should have happened with the letter. Could it not have been, that E. took the letter the
weekend before, when her father had birthday, with her and forgot to mail it
until that weekend in Washington ? It makes to me absolutely no sense and
I cannot imagine, that she would have had an advantage by posting the letter, if she would have been at the crime scene. It would rather be a proof that she was there. Maybe A.Hammel could say something about it.
The first person indeed to ask this would be Dr. Howard Haysom. As you know he was cut off in his examinations by Updike and Davis during Haysom's guilty plea at the point where he wanted to give his arguments for not going with the state attourney's theory but placing Elizabeth in the house during the crime. He also knew well about this letter. As I do not know any public opinions mentioned e.g. in interviews by him I would be very interrested about what the investigators had written down by interviewing him. Small town big crime should have access to that, now.
I wish EH would change her mind and request it.
Mr. H you have been rather quiet. I hope it means your doing stuff in the background. This can’t be it now, right?
Well cause of the great efforts of STBC we can keep this short and simple.
1) There was a time in which your firm argument was the DNA Retesting is useless and nonsense. Or in other words. What happened to you since yesterday??!!
2) it is quite odd that Haysom's voice comes permanently through her cousin. So her own attitude is only transferred. And I do not understand her decision. She could convince a lot of people even in her own family!
The idea to investigate the 3 beer cans (inside) out of the master bedroom for DNA is a great idea.
From my contact with Soering, he couldn't even remember those 3 beer cans. Beer cans and drinking on the drive to LC was a part of his confession.