"Smokescreens": A New (German) Book About the Söring Case

So far it looks like a winner. And it has already yielded a major correction!

Just days ago Siegfried Stang, a retired German detective, novelist, and journalist published a brand-new book about the Jens Söring case called “Nebelkerzen: Die Haysom-Morde und die Suche nach der Wahrheit.” (“Smokescreens: The Haysom Murders and the Search for the Truth”). The Kindle edition is 832! pages long and available for a quite reasonable 9 Euros. Don’t be alarmed by the length — much of the book is appendices in which Stang provides detailed background. The narrative is quite readable.

Stang starts at the beginning, setting out the facts of the case in a crisp, methodical fashion. It’s like reading a very solid police report, but not as technical. So far I’ve only read the first few chapters, but there’s already some interesting aspects to the book. First of all, Stang met Söring in November 2021 and spoke to him for seven hours. That must have been a fascinating encounter: An experienced senior detective who has immersed himself in the facts of the case asking Söring real questions about the case and comparing his answers against the record. I haven’t gotten to the part of the book in which Stang delivers his overall judgment about Söring’s story (actually, stories), but I think we can all imagine what that is likely to be, given the title of his book.

In addition to that interview, Stang has consulted the Wright Report, Ken Englade’s book Beyond Reason, numerous documentaries, and dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other documents. In the interest of full disclosure I should add that I have exchanged a few friendly emails with Stang and helped him out with a few sources. However, our contacts were merely superficial; this is 100% Stang’s book. And so far, I’m very impressed.

Stang has obviously done enormous amounts of research, and presents the facts methodically. So far, I haven’t spotted a single factual error, which is a welcome change from most coverage of the case. He does deliver his own judgments on various issues, which is of course a bonus, given Stang’s experience in criminal investigations. I will save a more detailed analysis until I’ve read the entire book, but I can say that I find most of Stang’s conclusions persuasive.

Further, Stang has revealed a new — actually old — fact which is important. In my FAZ article about Söring’s innocence claims, I relied on the Wright report (page 340) in saying that Detective Chuck Reid tested the Chevette rental car driven by Söring and Haysom with Luminol on April 9, 1985 — i.e., a day after the detectives’ first interview with Elizabeth Haysom. However, this appears to be incorrect. This is no criticism of Terry Wright, whose report is overwhelmingly reliable and accurate, and which has utterly revolutionized the way the worldwide press views Söring’s claims. Minor errors can slip in during the course of a 450-page analysis of a complex case.

Stang, however, relying on a 2018 letter from Chuck Reid to Söring’s lawyer Steven Rosenfield, places the date of the Luminol test much later — in June 1985, not April. I went to the trial record to check, and this is indeed the case. Investigator Geoff Brown is testifying on June 12, 1990, about various pieces of physical evidence in the case which were submitted for processing (p. 21):

A These are swabs, and with controls with the luminol examination from the rubber floor mat of the driver's side of a light blue Chevette.

Q And the license number regarding that, 8477615 --

A Was taken 6-25-85 at 10:36 p.m.

Q And these were taken by Investigator C.W. Reid, who is here today?

A Yes, sir.

Q And were these swabs taken from what has been identified as the rental car, the one that was rented on the weekend beginning March 25, 1985 [sic], turned back in March 31, 1985?

A Yes sir, that’s correct.

Stang is correct: The rental car used by Haysom and Söring wasn’t checked for Luminol on April 9 — 10 days after the murders, but rather on June 25, 1985 — 87 days after the murders.

Needless to say, this renders the negative Luminol results worthless, or “nugatory”, to use a fancy lawyer word just for fun.

The state of play before this correction was that Elizabeth cleaned the interior of the Chevette twice on the morning of March 31, carefully, also using Coca-Cola, which can interfere with Luminol results,¹ and that the car-rental clerk recalled the car being unusually clean when returned. The car was then, of course, professionally cleaned by the car rental agency, doubtless using strong industrial cleaners and powerful vacuums and scrubbers. Then the police came 10 days later to check the car.

The state of play after this correction remains the same, except now there’s a delay of almost 3 months between the murders and the Luminol test. We can safely assume the car was rented and returned repeatedly during this time — it was summer in a college town. The Chevette could have been rented, returned, and professionally cleaned 10, 20 or even 30 times before Chuck Reid performed his (in Stang’s opinion lackluster) Luminol examination.

So, to sum up — the book is required reading for everyone interested in the Söring case. And in fact, it’s already helped clear up a misconception I helped spread (sorry about that). Stang has reminded us all that the negative Luminol test is yet another smokescreen, to quote the title of his book.

Stay tuned for a fuller discussion once I finish the book. Or buy it yourself and post your own review in the comments!

1. In the USA, it’s long been common knowledge that Coca-Cola is great for removing bloodstains: “The carbonation and phosphoric acid in Coke can work wonders on bloodstains. Pour a can of Coke directly onto the stain and let it sit until the bloodstain is gone. This might take an hour or two depending on how set the stain is, but you should be able to tell once its [sic] fully lightened and wash it as usual.”