Söring on Netflix: "This Concoction is Really Unsatisfactory"

My initial thoughts. Plus, Söring still cannot bring himself to say my name!

First of all, if you’re interested in knowing more about this case, please consider buying my book, now available as a paperback. It’s cram-packed with tons of details and analysis!

I just watched the Netflix documentary, which Jens Söring has already called a Machwerk (concoction) which failed to tell the “truth” as he sees it. He’s already published four YouTube videos about it. He calls me a “strange guy”. He still cannot say my name!

You know, the “Translator from Düsseldorf, the “Texan Blogger”, the “Strange Guy”; i.e., Andrew Hammel

First, Söring’s take: Söring wanted them to mention the FBI profile (which doesn’t exist) and Elizabeth’s “confession”, which was a flippant remark. In the rest of the interview, he sets out his standard litany of complaints: biased judge, DNA excluded me and showed that there was “one” other person at the crime scene, Virginia denied me a pardon only to save paying me $1.4 million in compensation, etc. As late as September 2021, Söring was still expecting that the Netflix documentary would unambiguously endorse his side of the story and grant him the “media pardon” he craves.

It did not.

The end of the documentary endorses the two-perpetrator theory: That Söring and Haysom were at the crime scene. This is what Howard Haysom and Annie Massie believed. This split-the-baby solution infuriated Söring and will probably disappoint Elizabeth and her supporters, such as Phyllis Workman. She’s really a highlight of both the German series and Netflix: calm, thoughtful, reasonable, insightful.

Here’s my initial take on the Netflix series: I thought this was a nuanced and interesting exploration of one important factor of the case, the two personalities of Haysom and Söring. The tone was subdued and thoughtful. The re-creation of the courtroom scenes — especially the long pauses — was ingenious. The filmmakers and editors outdid themselves here. Jeff Taylor, the local reporter who looks like Santa Claus, was engaging and insightful, as were the Small Town, Big Crime journalists Courteney Stuart and Rachel Ryan.

We didn’t learn any new information, a far as I can tell, except a detail about the injuries to Nancy Haysom which, while gruesomely compelling, doesn’t add much to our understanding. One interesting new twist was the filmmakers hiring a forensic podiatrist who concluded that the sockprint indeed was a close match for Söring’s foot.

I think the series sort of fell between two stools. Its exploration of personalities was great, but the facts of the case needed more context. This is the rare Netflix series which was too short. I would like to have seen another 3 episodes in which Söring’s supporters get to state their case in more depth, and a skeptic — such as, I don’t know, perhaps Andrew Hammel — I go head-to-head with them. The recent documentary Convicting a Murderer did just this, putting the trial prosecutor in the room with a knowledgeable case fan who believed Steven Avery was innocent. Those were some of the most interpreting scenes. I actually proposed to the filmmakers that I debate John Grisham, but that didn’t work out, presumably because Grisham refused. The offer’s still open, Mr. Grisham!

The end of the documentary presents a fairly rushed case for the “two-perpetrators” theory, pointing to (1) Elizabeth’s fingerprints on the vodka bottle, (2) the untested hair at the crime scene, (3) the Merit cigarette butts outside the house, (4) a slip-up by Söring during one of his statements in which he referred to “our” trip to Lynchburg, and (5) a statement by Nancy Haysom that she was expecting a visit from both of them on the murder weekend.

That is pretty thin gruel. Nevertheless, it got me thinking about whether there is evidence which can decisively disprove the theory. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any. Theoretically, the pair could have bought the movie tickets in advance and ordered room service just before they left. There is no information about when telephone calls were placed from the hotel room. The note on the Marriott stationery in Elizabeth’s handwriting could have been created anytime.

The theory violates Occam’s Razor — Elizabeth stayed behind is still more plausible — but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

Does the two-perp theory play out in terms of motivation and later statements by the pair? Initially, the answer is “yes”. Both Elizabeth and Jens have an incentive to deny the two-perp theory; neither wants to admit being inside the home when the Haysoms were killed. Söring of course denied during his confessions that Elizabeth was there during the killings, but he could claim he was trying to protect her. Elizabeth denies being there because her family would be outraged.

Yet ultimately it doesn’t work. First of all, both Elizabeth and Jens agreed in London that she stayed behind. Second, Elizabeth’s decision to plead guilty is not consistent with her lying about this issue. If she really wanted to get away with murder, she could have simply stuck to her initial story, which is that she had no idea what Söring was planning. That would have made her only an accessory after the fact, a class 6 felony which has a penalty only of between 1 and 5 years. Instead, she confessed to police that she was an accessory before the fact. Finally, Elizabeth could have admitted being at the crime scene without admitting any role in the murders: Jens suddenly “freaks out”, she tries to stop him but can’t, then, horror-stricken but loyal, she helps him clean up the scene and cover up the crime.

In other words, the basic problem with the 2-perp theory is: If Elizabeth were capable of lying about being at the crime scene, she was also capable of inventing lies which would have reduced her culpability to a minimum. She couldn’t have lied her way out of the whole thing, but she could have lied her way to a maximum sentence of 5 years, not life in prison. That is one hell of a difference.

So my verdict is: Unconvinced. The 2-perp theory cannot be conclusively disproven by evidence, but it is nowhere near the most plausible explanation.

I’ll end this post with a few random observations:

• There is no comparison at all between this documentary and Killing for Love. Till Murder Do Us Part is suggestive and open-ended. There’s enough material in it for both “sides” to feel partially vindicated. It didn’t set out to change anyone’s minds, and probably won’t. Killing for Love is currently unavailable on any streaming service, and I for one hope it stays that way.

• Söring is only onscreen for perhaps 8-10 minutes total. He engages in a lot of theatrical sighing and eye-rolling. On the plus side for him, the directors probably cut out a lot of embarrassing stuff: The interview was conducted quite early, probably in late 2020. Many of the claims he was making then have since been refuted. If he made them in the Netflix interview, we don’t see them.

• Söring claims that when he spoke to his father after confessing to the murders, his father asked him whether his confessions were true, and Söring said yes. That caused his father to cry; the first time Söring had ever seen him do so. This is now version 3 (or 4?) of Söring’s story about when he revealed to his family that he had confessed falsely to protect Elizabeth. Söring simply cannot get his story straight on this key part of the timeline.

• The DNA issue got short shrift. I know it’s technical and can be boring, but I don’t think a viewer coming to the case for the first time would have understood what the endpoint of the DNA issue was. Although I did get to say it “proves nothing” either way, which is accurate.

That’s all for now, but I’ll revert later with more.