Söring Announcement Removed from Hamburg Law School Website

Will the interview still take place?

The story is now familiar. A journalist or media outlet or speaking venue receives a “Media Pack” from Jens Söring and is convinced by his tale of misguided love and injustice. They decide to help his media campaign with a high-profile interview or speaking gig, and announce the upcoming event. Often, they go so far as to promise their audience the insights of a man who was “wrongfully convicted” and/or “innocent”.

The one thing they almost never do is…perform a simple Google search. Just one search now turns up dozens of websites, newspaper articles, and podcasts which detail the compelling evidence for Jens Söring’s guilt and the fraudulence of his innocence claims. That’s all it takes — a Google search. But some event organizers seem unable to take even this basic step. Of course, they also have Team Söring whispering in their ear: “There’s no need to do any independent research. The media pack tells you everything you need to know about the case. And please, whatever you do, don’t pay any attention to the weirdo Texan blogger Andrew Hammel.”

Alas, what then happens is the event organizer receives polite but forceful complaints from people who’ve been following the case closely for years. They point out that (1) it’s grossly inaccurate to refer to Söring as “innocent”, that (2) he invariably claims he was wrongfully convicted during every appearance, no matter what he was supposed to be talking about; and (3) his portrayal of his case is one-sided, inaccurate, and often contains insults directed at the people who were responsible for bringing him to justice.

The complainers usually do not request that the speech or interview be cancelled. Söring has the right to tell his story. However, he doesn’t have the right to tell it without fact-checking and critical scrutiny. The complainers merely request that if Söring goes into great detail about how he was wrongly convicted — which he invariably does if given the chance — then his one-sided account should be counterbalanced and put into perspective. They often suggest to the event organizers that they should invite another guest — perhaps me — to provide a necessary balanced counter-perspective to Söring’s one-sided claims. I am always ready to so.

At this point, as often as not, the event organizers have a rude awakening. “Good heavens,” they say to themselves, reading all the unfamiliar, disturbing facts listed in the complaints, “there’s so much more to this case than Team Söring told me, or that was in Söring’s book.” The organizers thought they were inviting that guy — Suring? Sorring? Something with an “S” in any case — who was in prison in the USA or somewhere and who’s on talk shows a lot and who everyone thinks is innocent, including John Grisham. Now, they realize they have unwittingly invited one of the most controversial people in Germany — an unrepentant double-murderer whose innocence claims have been conclusively refuted.

At that point, they start to have second thoughts. If they don’t cancel the event, they sometimes go into stealth mode, advertising it only locally.

That seems to be what happened at the University of Hamburg. If you followed this link yesterday, you saw an announcement for Jens Söring’s upcoming speech at the Law Faculty of the University of Hamburg on 19 May 2022. If you click on it today, you see this:

And no, the search turns up nothing.

Note that this doesn’t mean the interview won’t happen. Perhaps there are still written handbills on campus advertising the speech. (If you happen to see one, please let me know!). I have an inquiry in to the organizers asking whether the interview will happen. If it does, I will be there.

However, it may well be the case that the organizers have decided to cancel the interview. That would be really unfortunate. I proposed to the organizers that they go ahead with the interview, but that I would appear, at my own expense, in order to provide a critical analysis and fact-check of Söring’s claims. Perhaps, I suggested, they could organize a debate — Söring attacking the American judicial system and claiming his innocence, and me defending (some aspects of) the system and arguing he was rightly convicted. I’m sure the students would learn plenty from this exciting debate, and I hope the organizers choose this path. A vigorous but polite exchange of views among knowledgeable experts is a great way to illuminate all facets of a complex issue.

In any event, I’ll let you know if and how they respond.