I am with you. Phyllis seems to be a wonderful great lady which caught my sympathy. I bet she is the best person who is able to give EH the most positive support on her way back to real life. Lifting heavy weights at an age being in her 80ties makes my mouth wide open.
But her point of view on the case is just an opinion, obviously formed by her direct and near contact to Elizabeth. That doesn't help to answer all the open questions in this case concerning the murder night and who was been there! You should mention that also Richard Haysom was convinced about her being in the house at the time of the double homocide.
Maybe there will come a time for trying to give an answer to all these open questions in a calm, logical and senseful way. Without pointing to the trials, where they never had been answered nor being discussed.
- weighty confession errors and the reason for confess (more than 10! Just to save "one" butt or two??)
- cash money at the Saturday around 400-500 (jewelry sale, cash return for check and credit card) bucks for both
- several testimonies: both had been expected for the this weekend due to tax declarations (and not to end their relationship)
- manila envelope postmarked in DC on April the first.
- 2. matching ticket for RHP is missing....no chance in getting that after returning from LC (source trash can)?
- 2 very weird declarations for a murder alibi - no corroborating evidence (Kim's stipulation)
- their fitting letter conversations in this context like to share the same guilt, the same future plans and the same horrible experience (which doesn't fit that Haysom was scoring drugs in a bar or anything else)
- the Voodooism
- bath tube and wall full of luminol blood traces - using shower and new clothes supports the spotless car (trial testimony) at its best - Soering showering back in the hotel? One of EH's perversion of truth
- the smaller sneaker imprint
- the forensic evidence
- room service and movie tickets (2nd movie) organized upfront
- a deal is a deal - guilty plea without the death sentence in a jury trial supporting the commonwealth for an early parole (the result at the end was killing the hope of an early parole)
- both blocking polygraph tests and DNA retesting
Well there a quite a few more....perhaps someone will recalibrate his eyes getting a fresh look all upon this.....
The two perp conclusion is a result for Soering as it throws into doubt the reliability of his confession and therefore his conviction, as there never was any physical evidence.
Maybe he was trying to protect Elizabeth after all?
Silly to just rely on their corroborative confessions, unless of course they were both more or less telling the truth?
The celebrities seem shy but how about freeing the lawyers from their client confidentiality and let's get their take in 2023?
If they were representing him at a parole hearing today, would they submit in his defence that:
a) the DNA evidence excludes him?
b) the non existent FBI profile points to a woman well known to the Haysoms?
Es ist schon irgendwie albern zu denken, dass Elizabeth, die so hassaktiv und offensiv im Dezember 1984 auf Komplizenfang ist (ihrer Mutter zu Weihnachten ein totbringendes Gedicht schenkt) ihre Eltern mit Voodoo umzubringen (und dann gibt es Voodooism) sich gute drei Monate später auf die inaktivere Rolle zurückzieht, Anstifterin zu sein, wobei sie ein essentielles Mörderalibi für ihren Liebespartner (der ihren Herzenswunsch verwirklicht) feiernd vergeigt. Und dann später in der Phase der London Geständnisse, als sie wusste, dass Söring gestanden haben muss ein Witzchen darüber macht, dass sie es alleine geschafft haben könnte, als man ihr das Alibi in den Mund legte! Total nutzlos...
Es freut mich, die beiden von STBC bei Netflix zu sehen. Wright hat Beaver vorgeschickt...Falltechnisch Wright steht halt 100% hinter Haysom. Das hat er ihr bereits 2016 auf Twitter signalisiert! Das er Söring zu einer Sekunde für unschuldig hält und den Wright Report an den Gouverneur verfasst widerspricht allen vorherigen seiner Aussagen. Das war er zu keinem Zeitpunkt und hatte es in zahlreichen Dokus verkündet!
Would anyone doubt that this crime was not carefully planned?
The assumption was that there would be immediate inquiries made by police at the Georgetown Marriott. That's why they went to Washington to begin with. It is the alibi.
The argument that these two would build into their design a room service order that would be delivered to their hotel room, at a point when both knew they would not be there to receive the order, can be refuted easily, as far as I am concerned. It would open up a dangerous area of unknown possibility. "What would happen if we do this?", they would have had to ask themselves. No hotel would leave a food order, much less an alcohol order of some sort, on the carpet in front of the hotel door. That is real liability. What about food poisoning? I believe that there would have been a firm hotel policy on this in 1985, and I know that there is a firm policy on this at the Georgetown Marriott now. The hotel would think, if the order were made, that the hotel guest would want the order when he or she finally got to their room, but for some reason, say, perhaps a traffic jam, had been delayed. Therefore, the routine now would be that the food order, presumably placed in some sort of metal clamshell container, and that, itself, probably in an insulated carrying box or bag, would be taken back down to the front desk, where it would be tagged and held for at least an hour allowing the guest a chance to make inquiry upon arrival. It is, after all, supper! And paid for. And it would be paid for, regardless. If the food order was returned to the kitchen, the room number would still be charged for the meal. There would be some sort of computerized symbol put on the record of this order in the event the bill was disputed. If the bill was not disputed then the charge would be added to the room bill and it would be run through, and not be an issue unless there was a formal dispute. But it would be remembered at the desk. That failure to receive a paid order simply is a little unusual. Elizabeth and Jens would have seen that this contretemps was a major problem in the plan. Someone had to be there. They wanted to be remembered, but not to have the desk clerk ten days later tell Bedford police, "Oh yes, there was something a little unusual..."
Further, Jens believed that Elizabeth was being crushed by her parents. He felt she could no longer stand up to them, was breaking down, that she was a genius who would never have a chance to fulfil herself or even to LIVE, really. She was the love of his life, and in his Taoist view of his own life and destiny --which he believed could be seen as being like the river of life--Tao or Dao can mean river, as well as path or road-- there were SIGNS it had become necessary for him to act in her behalf. He could see the TRUE situation--he had gotten through and out of the REM state --and he knew he had to be the one who took charge. He had to do it or each would go through life like cowards "affronting" their own destiny, sort of like some Henry James character --like Isabel Archer. Elizabeth was also like Styron's Sophie. A victim. (When, from the same lit-crit angle, wouldn't Liz be more like Thackery's Becky Sharp?)
Evidence of the Taoist motivation (somewhat like War 2 Japanese Taoism?) is quite visible. For example, Jens said in the December Manifesto that next semester he had to do "more rowing."
By the way. I am reading about L.A. Everything Now. By Rosencrans Baldwin. Yeah, that was Jens's town.
That is why he said in his Manifesto that next semester he needed to do "more rowing."
“Enjoy” would be the wrong word for a documentary about two murders, but I really like the show. I especially appreciate the fact that there are none of those annoying voice-overs that are based on the assumption that most people can only handle one language.
In one of the crime scene photos there is an object under Derek Haysom’s armpit that looks like large scissors or are those just serving-tongs that ended up on the floor? Does anyone know?
Hallo Dirk -- Elizabeth machte diese Aussage nicht beim Prozess, sondern bei der Vernehmung mit Kenneth Beever am 8. Juni 1985. Es war eine Anspielung auf eine der berühmtesten Mordfällen zu dieser Zeit, die von Karla Faye Tucker, die behauptet hat, sie hätte einen Orgasmus bei jedem Schlag auf die Opfer gehabt hat ("I got off on it" = Orgasumus).
Wikipedia: Karla Faye Tucker
Die Bemerkung war nur ein trotziger Witz. Gleich danach gestand Elizabeth ihre eigentliche Rolle bei den Morden: Anstifterin.
Dass diese Aussage ein Witz war, war so offensichtlich, dass es kein Thema beim Prozess war. Selbst die Verteidiger wussten, dass alle im Gerichtssaal diese Aussage als Witz einordnen würden.
Krasser Move, Andrew. Du legst Haysom in den Mund, eine Anspielung über einen Todeskandidaten in Texas (Deinem Geburts- und Ausbildungsstaat) zu machen. Ich staune immer wieder wie weit Deine Symphathie für Haysom als Fallexperte und als Blogger herhalten muß. Ich komme mir da ziemlich ähnlich verarscht vor, wie im Team Söring. Woher kommt diese unendliche Bereitschaft,sich seine Position grade zu rücken? Entfernt von belegbaren Fakten? Das ist genau das was Courtney und Rachel nicht passiert ist, obwohl sie beide intensiven Kontakt sowohl zu Team Söring wie Team Haysom hatten und beide letztendlich nicht überzeugend fanden! Auf Basis ihrer akribischen 360-Grad Recherche.
I love your fun theories, Doc, but sometimes you disappoint me. Why, oh why, would I mention Karla Faye Tucker? Well, because
(1) I was alive and living in Houston, Texas in 1983, when Tucker was arrested for her part in a brutal murder...in Houston!
(2) I watched literally hundreds of local and nationwide news stories about this spectacular case, in which reporters invariably always mentioned that Tucker said she "got off" on the murders -- the same words Elizabeth used.
(3) Throughout the entire fucking United States, everyone who watched the news knew that this female double-murderer (very rare), had said she "got off" on killing the victims.
"I got off on it" is Tucker's phrase, repeated a million times on American TV as Elizabeth Haysom was watching it.
“I got off on it” may not have reached the notoriety of the “dingo that ate the baby”, but it certainly came close.
Living in the US in the 80s and NOT having heard of Karla Faye Tucker and her unfortunate assertion would be comparable to having lived in Germany in the 80s without hearing of Marianne Bachmeier or Monika Weimar.
That is just trolling....Karla Faye Tucker's execution is part of Hammel's book "End of the Death Penalty" published in 2002...but that is the only result if you want to connect Tucker and Haysom (and Hammel). This comparison of that same phrase or connect to Haysom did never happen except 2 days before by Hammel on Allmystery. I know the single killer version with Soering was questioned very deeply and clearly at the end of the Netflix mini series and you guys are getting a bit nervous so as Soering. But after establishing monocausual narratives (ignoring facts and a big picture) you shouldn't turn your scheme into simply stupid hogwashing without any evidence!!!
Oh, come on, Doc Crimescene: You’re the only person in this Substack who verbally lashes out at other contributors. Don’t accuse other people of “trolling”.
I have not read Andrew’s book on the death penalty, and I don’t use Allmystery. At this point I haven’t even had time to watch the Netflix documentary.
You appear to be very emotionally invested in this case. I’m not. I don’t have any personal connection to it, and I’m definitely not “nervous” - provided, you included me in “you guys”.
In fact, I don’t consider Haysom’s comment anything other than a release of nervous energy of no factual value. Interrogations are highly charged and emotional situations during which people do and say the strangest things when the heat is on.
Emotional? I don't like to present speculation without evidence as a law or rule. It is quite obvious that Andrew had tried to find another (new) excuse for Haysom introducing her guilt as a joke. The connect to Tucker is completely new and so complete speculation.
and your speculation has ended up that she had adopted it, only cause of the same phrase (i did it myself is missing!)....and this phrase was so famous that it made it from texas right to virgina??!!.....mr.attourney.....
that is not hearsay...that is opinion....objection.....objection sustained...thank you your honor...
Ausserdem ist das Argument, das Fehlen der Phrase im Söring Prozess, sei der Beweis für den Witzgehalt dieser, ein schlechter Witz. In der Haysom Guilty Plea hatte Haysom unglaubwürdig vermittelt, nicht am Tatort gewesen zu sein, bzw. abgestritten es gar zugegeben zu haben. Daran hat niemand aus den bekannten Gründen gerüttelt. Weder Staatsanwalt noch der Richter. Mit Anerkennung der Guilty Plea war eine Tatsache geschaffen die den Satz juristisch obsolet und für Neaton überflüssig machten.Tatsächlich interessant ist allerdings, dass Beever zwei Sätze zuvor Haysom löchert "or are you both guilty?"....da ist Frau Haysom wohl trotzig nervös geworden....und musste Beever ablenken...
Deiner steilen Tucker-These folgen weder Englade, Wright noch Maguire (sollte es den wirklich geben)
Ich bin mir sicher, Jens Söring ist beim nächsten Dschungelcamp dabei...
I am with you. Phyllis seems to be a wonderful great lady which caught my sympathy. I bet she is the best person who is able to give EH the most positive support on her way back to real life. Lifting heavy weights at an age being in her 80ties makes my mouth wide open.
But her point of view on the case is just an opinion, obviously formed by her direct and near contact to Elizabeth. That doesn't help to answer all the open questions in this case concerning the murder night and who was been there! You should mention that also Richard Haysom was convinced about her being in the house at the time of the double homocide.
Maybe there will come a time for trying to give an answer to all these open questions in a calm, logical and senseful way. Without pointing to the trials, where they never had been answered nor being discussed.
- weighty confession errors and the reason for confess (more than 10! Just to save "one" butt or two??)
- cash money at the Saturday around 400-500 (jewelry sale, cash return for check and credit card) bucks for both
- several testimonies: both had been expected for the this weekend due to tax declarations (and not to end their relationship)
- manila envelope postmarked in DC on April the first.
- 2. matching ticket for RHP is missing....no chance in getting that after returning from LC (source trash can)?
- 2 very weird declarations for a murder alibi - no corroborating evidence (Kim's stipulation)
- their fitting letter conversations in this context like to share the same guilt, the same future plans and the same horrible experience (which doesn't fit that Haysom was scoring drugs in a bar or anything else)
- the Voodooism
- bath tube and wall full of luminol blood traces - using shower and new clothes supports the spotless car (trial testimony) at its best - Soering showering back in the hotel? One of EH's perversion of truth
- the smaller sneaker imprint
- the forensic evidence
- room service and movie tickets (2nd movie) organized upfront
- a deal is a deal - guilty plea without the death sentence in a jury trial supporting the commonwealth for an early parole (the result at the end was killing the hope of an early parole)
- both blocking polygraph tests and DNA retesting
Well there a quite a few more....perhaps someone will recalibrate his eyes getting a fresh look all upon this.....
The two perp conclusion is a result for Soering as it throws into doubt the reliability of his confession and therefore his conviction, as there never was any physical evidence.
Maybe he was trying to protect Elizabeth after all?
Silly to just rely on their corroborative confessions, unless of course they were both more or less telling the truth?
The celebrities seem shy but how about freeing the lawyers from their client confidentiality and let's get their take in 2023?
If they were representing him at a parole hearing today, would they submit in his defence that:
a) the DNA evidence excludes him?
b) the non existent FBI profile points to a woman well known to the Haysoms?
Es ist schon irgendwie albern zu denken, dass Elizabeth, die so hassaktiv und offensiv im Dezember 1984 auf Komplizenfang ist (ihrer Mutter zu Weihnachten ein totbringendes Gedicht schenkt) ihre Eltern mit Voodoo umzubringen (und dann gibt es Voodooism) sich gute drei Monate später auf die inaktivere Rolle zurückzieht, Anstifterin zu sein, wobei sie ein essentielles Mörderalibi für ihren Liebespartner (der ihren Herzenswunsch verwirklicht) feiernd vergeigt. Und dann später in der Phase der London Geständnisse, als sie wusste, dass Söring gestanden haben muss ein Witzchen darüber macht, dass sie es alleine geschafft haben könnte, als man ihr das Alibi in den Mund legte! Total nutzlos...
Es freut mich, die beiden von STBC bei Netflix zu sehen. Wright hat Beaver vorgeschickt...Falltechnisch Wright steht halt 100% hinter Haysom. Das hat er ihr bereits 2016 auf Twitter signalisiert! Das er Söring zu einer Sekunde für unschuldig hält und den Wright Report an den Gouverneur verfasst widerspricht allen vorherigen seiner Aussagen. Das war er zu keinem Zeitpunkt und hatte es in zahlreichen Dokus verkündet!
Would anyone doubt that this crime was not carefully planned?
The assumption was that there would be immediate inquiries made by police at the Georgetown Marriott. That's why they went to Washington to begin with. It is the alibi.
The argument that these two would build into their design a room service order that would be delivered to their hotel room, at a point when both knew they would not be there to receive the order, can be refuted easily, as far as I am concerned. It would open up a dangerous area of unknown possibility. "What would happen if we do this?", they would have had to ask themselves. No hotel would leave a food order, much less an alcohol order of some sort, on the carpet in front of the hotel door. That is real liability. What about food poisoning? I believe that there would have been a firm hotel policy on this in 1985, and I know that there is a firm policy on this at the Georgetown Marriott now. The hotel would think, if the order were made, that the hotel guest would want the order when he or she finally got to their room, but for some reason, say, perhaps a traffic jam, had been delayed. Therefore, the routine now would be that the food order, presumably placed in some sort of metal clamshell container, and that, itself, probably in an insulated carrying box or bag, would be taken back down to the front desk, where it would be tagged and held for at least an hour allowing the guest a chance to make inquiry upon arrival. It is, after all, supper! And paid for. And it would be paid for, regardless. If the food order was returned to the kitchen, the room number would still be charged for the meal. There would be some sort of computerized symbol put on the record of this order in the event the bill was disputed. If the bill was not disputed then the charge would be added to the room bill and it would be run through, and not be an issue unless there was a formal dispute. But it would be remembered at the desk. That failure to receive a paid order simply is a little unusual. Elizabeth and Jens would have seen that this contretemps was a major problem in the plan. Someone had to be there. They wanted to be remembered, but not to have the desk clerk ten days later tell Bedford police, "Oh yes, there was something a little unusual..."
Further, Jens believed that Elizabeth was being crushed by her parents. He felt she could no longer stand up to them, was breaking down, that she was a genius who would never have a chance to fulfil herself or even to LIVE, really. She was the love of his life, and in his Taoist view of his own life and destiny --which he believed could be seen as being like the river of life--Tao or Dao can mean river, as well as path or road-- there were SIGNS it had become necessary for him to act in her behalf. He could see the TRUE situation--he had gotten through and out of the REM state --and he knew he had to be the one who took charge. He had to do it or each would go through life like cowards "affronting" their own destiny, sort of like some Henry James character --like Isabel Archer. Elizabeth was also like Styron's Sophie. A victim. (When, from the same lit-crit angle, wouldn't Liz be more like Thackery's Becky Sharp?)
Evidence of the Taoist motivation (somewhat like War 2 Japanese Taoism?) is quite visible. For example, Jens said in the December Manifesto that next semester he had to do "more rowing."
By the way. I am reading about L.A. Everything Now. By Rosencrans Baldwin. Yeah, that was Jens's town.
That is why he said in his Manifesto that next semester he needed to do "more rowing."
“Enjoy” would be the wrong word for a documentary about two murders, but I really like the show. I especially appreciate the fact that there are none of those annoying voice-overs that are based on the assumption that most people can only handle one language.
In one of the crime scene photos there is an object under Derek Haysom’s armpit that looks like large scissors or are those just serving-tongs that ended up on the floor? Does anyone know?
Arctic Warrior,
I think they must be the fireplace tongs, to be used as a weapon.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/netflix-till-murder-us-part-073648431.html
Not sure of the origins of this article but it seems out dated
Encomium
gestern um 09:25
anwesend
Zitat von Dirk14Dirk14 schrieb:
Was bewegt Elisabeth Haysom zu dieser Aussage.
Warum sagt sie das.
Das habe ich nie verstanden.
Hallo Dirk -- Elizabeth machte diese Aussage nicht beim Prozess, sondern bei der Vernehmung mit Kenneth Beever am 8. Juni 1985. Es war eine Anspielung auf eine der berühmtesten Mordfällen zu dieser Zeit, die von Karla Faye Tucker, die behauptet hat, sie hätte einen Orgasmus bei jedem Schlag auf die Opfer gehabt hat ("I got off on it" = Orgasumus).
Wikipedia: Karla Faye Tucker
Die Bemerkung war nur ein trotziger Witz. Gleich danach gestand Elizabeth ihre eigentliche Rolle bei den Morden: Anstifterin.
Dass diese Aussage ein Witz war, war so offensichtlich, dass es kein Thema beim Prozess war. Selbst die Verteidiger wussten, dass alle im Gerichtssaal diese Aussage als Witz einordnen würden.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Krasser Move, Andrew. Du legst Haysom in den Mund, eine Anspielung über einen Todeskandidaten in Texas (Deinem Geburts- und Ausbildungsstaat) zu machen. Ich staune immer wieder wie weit Deine Symphathie für Haysom als Fallexperte und als Blogger herhalten muß. Ich komme mir da ziemlich ähnlich verarscht vor, wie im Team Söring. Woher kommt diese unendliche Bereitschaft,sich seine Position grade zu rücken? Entfernt von belegbaren Fakten? Das ist genau das was Courtney und Rachel nicht passiert ist, obwohl sie beide intensiven Kontakt sowohl zu Team Söring wie Team Haysom hatten und beide letztendlich nicht überzeugend fanden! Auf Basis ihrer akribischen 360-Grad Recherche.
S t r a n g e.
I love your fun theories, Doc, but sometimes you disappoint me. Why, oh why, would I mention Karla Faye Tucker? Well, because
(1) I was alive and living in Houston, Texas in 1983, when Tucker was arrested for her part in a brutal murder...in Houston!
(2) I watched literally hundreds of local and nationwide news stories about this spectacular case, in which reporters invariably always mentioned that Tucker said she "got off" on the murders -- the same words Elizabeth used.
(3) Throughout the entire fucking United States, everyone who watched the news knew that this female double-murderer (very rare), had said she "got off" on killing the victims.
"I got off on it" is Tucker's phrase, repeated a million times on American TV as Elizabeth Haysom was watching it.
Schuster, bleib bei deinen Leisten!
“I got off on it” may not have reached the notoriety of the “dingo that ate the baby”, but it certainly came close.
Living in the US in the 80s and NOT having heard of Karla Faye Tucker and her unfortunate assertion would be comparable to having lived in Germany in the 80s without hearing of Marianne Bachmeier or Monika Weimar.
That is just trolling....Karla Faye Tucker's execution is part of Hammel's book "End of the Death Penalty" published in 2002...but that is the only result if you want to connect Tucker and Haysom (and Hammel). This comparison of that same phrase or connect to Haysom did never happen except 2 days before by Hammel on Allmystery. I know the single killer version with Soering was questioned very deeply and clearly at the end of the Netflix mini series and you guys are getting a bit nervous so as Soering. But after establishing monocausual narratives (ignoring facts and a big picture) you shouldn't turn your scheme into simply stupid hogwashing without any evidence!!!
Oh, come on, Doc Crimescene: You’re the only person in this Substack who verbally lashes out at other contributors. Don’t accuse other people of “trolling”.
I have not read Andrew’s book on the death penalty, and I don’t use Allmystery. At this point I haven’t even had time to watch the Netflix documentary.
You appear to be very emotionally invested in this case. I’m not. I don’t have any personal connection to it, and I’m definitely not “nervous” - provided, you included me in “you guys”.
In fact, I don’t consider Haysom’s comment anything other than a release of nervous energy of no factual value. Interrogations are highly charged and emotional situations during which people do and say the strangest things when the heat is on.
Emotional? I don't like to present speculation without evidence as a law or rule. It is quite obvious that Andrew had tried to find another (new) excuse for Haysom introducing her guilt as a joke. The connect to Tucker is completely new and so complete speculation.
So keep cool and eat a cookie 😂
and your speculation has ended up that she had adopted it, only cause of the same phrase (i did it myself is missing!)....and this phrase was so famous that it made it from texas right to virgina??!!.....mr.attourney.....
that is not hearsay...that is opinion....objection.....objection sustained...thank you your honor...
Ausserdem ist das Argument, das Fehlen der Phrase im Söring Prozess, sei der Beweis für den Witzgehalt dieser, ein schlechter Witz. In der Haysom Guilty Plea hatte Haysom unglaubwürdig vermittelt, nicht am Tatort gewesen zu sein, bzw. abgestritten es gar zugegeben zu haben. Daran hat niemand aus den bekannten Gründen gerüttelt. Weder Staatsanwalt noch der Richter. Mit Anerkennung der Guilty Plea war eine Tatsache geschaffen die den Satz juristisch obsolet und für Neaton überflüssig machten.Tatsächlich interessant ist allerdings, dass Beever zwei Sätze zuvor Haysom löchert "or are you both guilty?"....da ist Frau Haysom wohl trotzig nervös geworden....und musste Beever ablenken...
Deiner steilen Tucker-These folgen weder Englade, Wright noch Maguire (sollte es den wirklich geben)