Söring Can Request DNA Testing Any Time He Likes
His excuse for not requesting it is shot down by three Virginia criminal-defense lawyers.
At around 29:00 in this video, the “Small Town, Big Crime” journalists address Söring’s claim that he can’t request DNA testing because this would force him to commit perjury. Söring said this in a YouTube video which “surprised” the podcasters because of its “hostility” to them.
Nevertheless, the podcasters decided to see whether Söring had a point. They talked to “three criminal-defense lawyers” in Virginia who all said perjury wouldn’t be an issue, and that if “they were representing somebody in his position, that they would use that statute to request DNA testing and that this was just simply not accurate, what [Söring] was saying.” I’ve also made that point on this blog.
Toward the end of this video this exchange occurs:
Courteney Stuart: “Jens said to us early on, maybe in the interview that we did when he was still in prison in Virginia, he said that getting the pardon was more important at that point than parole. He wanted to clear his name… he has continued to actively call out the state of Virginia and the US justice system for this miscarriage of justice and continue to claim that he was wrongfully convicted, that his confession was false, and so, if you’re holding that position and you’re gonna be a public speaker and build a public persona around that claim, then — given the opporunity to bolster your claims, I just thought he would have wanted to take it.”
Rachel Ryan: “Yeah, I don’t see the downside. If you’re innocent, why would you not? What would you have to lose?”
That pretty much captures it.
There’s a plan for reliable DNA testing all ready to go, needing just Söring’s signature. Söring will never agree to it. It’s clear why.
To make a short story not too long. Both murderer had lost forensic evidence at the scene and now they both fear new techniques detecting their biological traces in evidence that is in close relation to the murder night. This adopts typical investigator thoughts of becoming suspicious as both had denied DNA retesting.
But you can write 20.000 words about it. Nothing will change it. Soering is successfully betraying his followers and Haysom is forgotten in her role of an agitator of the killings. At her guilty plea her family and close friends didn't swallow her story, but this was in '87 and no jury had been present. Also the proscecutor was desparate and confused in choosing her version to believe. But at Soering's trial in 1990 the same proscecutor had only focussed on the confession version with the help of the sentenced agitator.
So DNA could tell a story that is better, plausible and more coherent than Soering's leading to the State's theory which had been adopted by the jury.
So if you tell a story which could corrorborate Soering's version and the evidence it has to contain elements like this....
......The same Soering, who was entering the house in Haysom's holy tight sneakers and leaving the house with Derek's Canadian tax declarations. As the table in the diningroom was smashed upside down during the fight, as Wright had recalled Soering's statement in the podcast System Soering, Soering had to tidy up everything which took him hours without his broken glasses. But Soering did all the Voodooism allone like a brave guy receiving all orders by Lady Macbeth via telepathy. In order to put all his bloody parts in the bag he had to throw the three beer cans into the master bedroom's dustbin. Yes the three cans of beer he had drunk while driving to LC as it was so "fuc.....hot" (less than 16 degrees Celsius on that day in the afternoon) in the car.....this is only the beginning of what it sounds like a fairytale if you count on Soering's single killer version too seriously.........🤦
Wie heißen denn diese drei Anwälte? Und wo sind Belege dafür was sie sagen? Was sagen sie genau?