Söring Pays My Excellent Lawyer David Ziegelmayer and is Planning Something "Big" with John Grisham (Who Still Refuses to Debate Me)

John Grisham has always refused to debate me about Söring's case. Will he put his reputation on the line for Jens Söring, even at this late date?

Söring Pays My Lawyers’ Fees

There are a few updates about Jens Söring’s media campaign, but first I am happy to report that Söring has finally paid my attorney’s fees for his failed defamation lawsuit against me. Söring filed the claim in May of 2022 about this blog post, in which I analyze factors suggesting Söring might be a future danger, pro and con, and come to the conclusion that the likelihood is “very very low” that he will commit a future act of violence. That apparently wasn’t good enough for him, so he sued me. Working with the outstanding Cologne media and IP lawyer David Ziegelmayer, I prepared a response to Söring’s claims. In a court hearing on June 3, 2022, three judges of the Frankfurt Regional Court presided over a hearing in the case.

Söring didn’t bother to show up, but I did. The judges pummeled Söring’s lawyers with skeptical questions, pointing out that Söring was himself seeking media fame (and thus had to expect pushback), that he remains a convicted murderer, and that my statements were clearly opinions on a matter of legitimate public dispute. Söring’s lawyers presented the court with a few printouts of Tweets and Facebook posts containing veiled threats against Söring, implying that I had written them or caused others to write them. I was happy to deny this in open court. As we will see later, though, Söring continues to imply that I am “stalking” him.

The judges were clearly concerned by the fact that Söring had not provided the court with his actual home address. (Owing to my many memberships in professional organizations, my address isn’t hard to discover). German courts are “loser-pays”; if you lose a lawsuit, you have to pay the other sides attorney’s fees. Yet instead of putting his actual home address on the lawsuit, Söring had provided only the address of his law firm.

The judges noted that this could make it impossible to actually recover any fees or damages, since the law firm is not responsible for paying Söring’s court judgments and debts, he is. The judges forced Söring’s lawyers to disclose his private address in open court, which they did only with obvious reluctance. Given the tone of the court’s questions, Söring’s lawyers asked for a brief recess. They then withdrew Söring’s complaint, ending the lawsuit once and for all. What followed were technical appeals based on the “Streitwert”, the nominal value of the lawsuit. Eventually, these were settled, and Söring received an official notice to pay David Ziegelmayer, which he did a few weeks ago.

Even though this lawsuit cost me hundreds of hours of effort to respond to, I receive no compensation under German law. This is because the possibility of being sued is just considered a cost of being a German citizen (or in my case, resident). I can understand the rule, and it’s probably the right one, especially since the loser has to pay the other side’s fees and costs. Still, it was a bit of a hassle. But on the other hand, it was also a fascinating learning experience!

Söring Reportedly Refers to me as a “Stalker” During his Cologne Shows

There’s nothing to report on the recorded telephone interview I gave a German reporter a few weeks ago. This was someone who had written about Söring’s case before and interviewed him, and was planning a major feature story on the case. I talked with this person for almost an hour (in German) and authorized them to quote from the interview. So far, no article has been published. I assume that this is another instance of a reporter shelving a story about Söring after they find out that his critics aren’t crazy trolls, and that it would take significant effort to figure out whether what Söring has told them is actually true. Normally I consider derailing a potential newspaper article a small victory, given that most articles have contained numerous distortions and exaggerations that just sow confusion. But this reporter sounded like they wanted to write a balanced piece that gave a fair hearing to Söring’s critics. If that’s the case, I hope they eventually write the piece.

Now on to breaking news: Jens Söring has just completed his 3-evening “residency” in the Cologne restaurant Consilium. Here’s a brand-new news story (g) and video feature about the “Wine & Crime” dinner-shows. Söring informs us he is “interested in love” and has “had contact with some women” since his release. Judging by the facial expressions of some of the restaurant guests in the video feature, he’s not at a loss for options. The reporter herself refers over and over to the “fascination” Jens Söring’s case holds for some people. She also says the case remains so “fascinating” because there is still, today, “no unambiguous evidence” of his guilt. Romy Schiemann, the reporter, obviously has no clue what she’s talking about here, but then again, that’s par for the course. Still, one would like to ask her whether she thinks American juries regularly convict people unanimously, and whether American courts uphold those convictions unanimously, on no evidence. Does she even think about the things she says?

In addition to this story, I’ve now heard several reports from people who attended one of the three evenings. They say guests were let in around 18:00, and Söring began his presentation around 19:00. There was a break for dinner from 19:00 to 20:00, then Söring resumed his presentation, which was accompanied by PowerPoint. The first part described conditions in Virginia prisons, the second part was explaining why his conviction was unjust. Most of the questions were softballs such as “how are you adjusting to freedom?” and “do people recognize you on the street?”. The people in attendance seemed to know very little about Söring’s case. Afterward, Söring signed copies of his books, including his “new” book “One Day in the Life of 179212”. This book was actually published in German in 2008, so I don’t know why Söring considers it “new”.

A few interesting details trickled out. One guest pointed out that press coverage of his case had gotten more critical lately. According to one account I have read, Söring attributed this to reporters who didn’t research his case adequately and a “stalker” who was trying to damage his “image”. Asked about that stalker, he identified a criminal defense lawyer who had worked for “6 or 7” years and whose license was now inactive. As per custom, he didn’t mention my name. I don’t know whether that’s to minimize the possibility of lawsuits (no need to worry) or just to make it slightly harder for people to discover what I’ve said and written about the case. In any case, as the lawsuit and his “stalker” comment show, Söring still seems convinced that I have a variety of online personalities which I use to anonymously denounce and defame him.

As I was happy to confirm in open court before three German judges, this is untrue. I critique Söring’s innocence story under my own name. Nor, of course, have I ever physically “stalked” Söring. I’ve only attended one of his presentations, and didn’t go to any of his Cologne evenings because they were private functions. I have, of course, never followed him around or trespassed on his property or taken pictures of him or anything of the sort. He would be well-advised, therefore, to mind his language. Stalking and harassment are crimes in Germany, and falsely accusing someone of a crime can be defamation. I’m a big fan of free speech and generally prefer to debate matters in the public sphere, not a courtroom, but even I have limits.

It’s obvious why Söring continues to characterize me as a “stalker” — he wants to spin the controversy which attends him as the artificial product of some random Internet obsessive. That, he hopes, will distract people from the fact that dozens of people have now publicly dismantled his innocence story, including Terry Wright and Annabel H. and producers at Deutschlandfunk (g) and writers at Übermedien (g), etc. But that cat, as they say, is out of the bag.

John Grisham Still Won’t Debate Me, Bro

Another interesting tidbit is that Söring mentioned that he has been in contact with John Grisham recently, and that they are both planning something “big”. It’s always hard to tell how seriously to take these announcements: Söring sometimes announces things which don’t happen. I find it hard to believe that John Grisham, at this late date, would be willing to put his reputation on the line for Jens Söring. The podcast Das System Söring (g), which sets out the case for Söring’s guilt in exhaustive detail, has now been downloaded well over a million times, and the English version will be released soon. The Netflix documentary on Söring’s case, which will also be released shortly, will feature a long interview with me and with other well-informed skeptics of Söring’s story. Grisham has to know — or at least should know — that Söring has refused free, state-of-the-art DNA testing of the evidence in his case which could prove his innocence (or do the opposite). As far as I can tell, Sörings two most long-term German supporters (Marcus Vetter and Karin Steinberger) haven’t said a word publicly endorsing Söring’s innocence claims since Söring landed in Germany in 2019.

In other words, Söring’s innocence claims are now defunct, and even someone with the star power of John Grisham will be unable to revive them, Lazarus-like. If Grisham publicly endorses Söring’s narrative now, he will damage his reputation. This would be unfortunate, since John Grisham has done much valuable work highlighting cases of actual wrongful convictions. Let me repeat: Many of the cases Grisham has highlighted are genuinely troubling, and he has played a role in freeing people who did not deserve to be behind bars. If he decides to trumpet Söring’s innocence now, long after (almost) everyone else has jumped ship, he will undermine his efforts to remedy genuine wrongful convictions. I have repeatedly offered privately and publicly to debate John Grisham (or any other supporter) on the subject of Jens Söring’s case. Two trained advocates and experts in American criminal law going (respectfully) head-to-head on a controversial case: Now that’s what I call edu-tainment!

Alas, Grisham has always refused. If Grisham is actually considering going public with support for Jens Söring, I again urge him to get in touch with me and participate in a public debate. After all, what could be better PR for Söring than to have a world-famous writer crush some obscure skeptic of Söring’s claims in an open debate? We can put it on pay-per-view YouTube and I hereby agree right now to donate all the proceeds to the Innocence Project, a program both of us support — or to another charity of Grisham’s choice.

I look forward to hearing from Grisham’s people!