Testimony of Terry Wright, June 7, 1990

Terry Wright corroborates Jens Söring's confession to Ricky Gardner and adds a few new details.

Introduction

The next witness after Ricky Gardner on June 7 ,1990, was Detective Constable Terry Wright. After Gardner’s initial interview with Söring on June 8, 1986, Söring consented to Terry Wright and Kenneth Beever joining Gardner and Söring. He did not consent to the interview being audiotaped. Söring then basically told the story he had just told Ricky Gardner all over again, adding a few details. Terry Wright here testifies from the notes he took during this interview.

I have left in a somewhat long and tedious dispute about evidence, just for completeness’ sake. Feel free to skip it if you’re not interested.

Excerpt of Testimony of Terry Wright, Commonwealth v. Soering, June 7, 1990

TERRY WRIGHT, was called as a witness and having been duly sworn was examined and testified as follows:

THE COURT; All right, you remain under oath.

Q: Detective Constable Wright, I'd like to ask you first of all, concerning June 8th, 1986, and the second interview which occurred on that date, and I am going to refer to the Mirandas to refresh my memory. First of all, Commonwealth's Exhibit Number 58, and also 59, there was one interview at 4:45 p.m., and as I understand it, you were not present during that one, but during the second one beginning at 7:18 p.m.

A: Yes, sir, that is correct.

Q: Now during that second interview, you took notes as to what the defendant said, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir. They are not complete notes, they are notes — I was writing as fast as I could, I couldn't record every word.

Q: All right, sir. What I would like, then, is with your notes, to state, please, what the defendant said during that second interview.

A: Yes, sir.

MR. NEATON: I am going to object, it's been asked and answered, it's duplicative, it's been put in through Mr. Gardner.

MR. UPDIKE: It. most certainly has not, Your Honor. The Court will recall when Investigator Gardner finished testifying as to the first portion of the interview, he put his notes in his pocket, because he had no notes as to the second interview, Detective Constable Wright took those. He was only asked some several brief questions and he gave several brief responses. Detective Constable Wright is the individual who took the notes as to that second interview and is the person in the position to relate, and there is a great deal of information, Your Honor, in these notes which has not been testified to, because he's the one who took the notes. I did not ask Investigator Gardner, because he didn't take the notes during the second interview, he testified as to the first. I'm not asking him about the first one.

MR. NEATON: Your Honor, the items we received from the Commonwealth during discovery indicate notes for the entire conversation, and the item, the contents of those notes indicate that the testimony of this witness would be the same as it would have been of Investigator Gardner. And if there is a proffer to be made of anything different, than I'd ask that it be made outside the presence of the jury. Because I have reviewed that statement, or the notes that have been supplied us, and I don't see any difference.

MR. UPDIKE: Well then Your Honor, they were given copies of the notes. Just looking at the last, page of the notes, read an extract from Page 10 of the diary, where did Detective Constable -- Investigator Gardner

MR: NEATON I am going to object to the Commonwealth's attorney editorializing in front of the Jury, we have an evidentiary issue here.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. UPDIKE: The only thing I will say, then, Your Honor, is we strongly dispute Mr. Neaton's statement, to the Court, it's not accurate.

THE COURT: Well I'll rule. On the basis of the Commonwealth's statement that the information which will now come in has not been covered by another witness, I must let the testimony in if it's relevant.

MR. NEATON: Then I ask for a short adjournment, because we have not been supplied the notes of this witness. We have been supplied a summary compiled by Investigator Gardner, and I think we have a right to review the notes before the witness testifies.

MR. UPDIKE: That is absolutely untrue. If counsel will look at the typed statements, the summary of that interview, Investigator Gardner says I am reading Detective Constable Wright's notes, and they are read verbatim.

THE. COURT: Better check that, Mr. Neaton.

MR. UPDIKE: The document that I gave you.

MR. NEATON: Here it is.

MR. UPDIKE: There are references earlier, but beginning at Page 5 —

MR. NEATON: I have a document entitled summary statement of R.W, Gardner that is a seven-page typewritten document.

MR. UPDIKE: Yes. sir. Look at Page 5 on it.

THE COURT: What does it say? I don't know, what does it say on Page 5?

MR. NEATON: Well if we’re going to say that on the record, the document itself is not in evidence, and it should be spoken about outside the presence of the jury. 1 will be glad to read what's on Page 5, and I would be glad to respond to the Commonwealth without putting in a document in front of the jury that's not. in evidence.

MR. UPDIKE: And Your Honor --

MR. NEATON: Would you give me 10 seconds?

MR. UPDIKE; You have had that, and I thought you were finished. Please tell me when you're finished, because I would like to respond, Your Honor.

THE COURT; Well I can always tell when it's getting late in the day. If you gentlemen feel that this is something we should send the jury out, I really don't mind doing that. It's Just a question of whether it's repetitious or not, and of course I haven't seen it, I don't know. If the two of you could discuss it and possibly resolve it among yourselves that will be fine, if not. I'll send the jury out.

MR. UPDIKE; Your Honor, we have no objection to the Court looking at the notes and looking at Page 5 where 1 am talking about, Page 5 of the document that counsel has in his hand.

THE COURT: Are you going to start with him on Page 5?

MR. UPDIKE: Yes, sir, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well now may I see it?

MR. UPDIKE: Well, Your Honor, what he has is the written notes which he wrote. Page 5 is where his notes are typed up with what's given counsel.

MR. NEATON: Well Judge, there's been an issue regarding this witness's notes in the past, And what I simply want to do is look at this witness's notes, not what Detective Gardner says this witness wrote in his notes. And I think under the rules of evidence we re entitled to look at the notes themselves, which this witness has apparently used to refresh his memory, or which he's apparently going to read to the jury.

THE COURT: Do you have any objection to that?

MR. UPDIKE: We have given it to him, Judge.

THE COURT: Well, but he wants to see them,

MR. UPDIKE: No objection.

THE COURT: Do you have any objection?

THE WITNESS; No, sir.

THE COURT: Let Mr. Neaton see the notes which you intend to testify from
right now. Take a look at them, Mr. Neaton.

MR. NEATON; Thank you Judge. Thank you, Mr. Updike. (Pause for perusal of notes.)

MR. UPDIKE: We would like for you to compare them with the typed page that you said did not have those on there as well.

MR. NEATON: I did not say that, Mr, Updike. The only thing I said was that I did not see this.

MR. UPDIKE: He said that he did not have the notes, and they are typed up here.

MR. NEATON: Judge, my position still is that this is duplicative, it's cumulative testimony, and that it should not be admitted because —

THE COURT: May I see it —

MR. NEATON: Because as far as I can tell, Investigator Gardener's already testified to this.

THE COURT: All right, let me look this over, and then I'll rule.

MR. UPDIKE: Your Honor, we'd like to to be heard on the issue. There are parts that are duplicative, there are other which are not. And two people heard a statement, that's corroborative. We'd also like to clarify as to the discovery issue raised that defense does in fact have its statement.

MR, NEATON: Judge, I'm satisfied that the typewritten notes that Mr, Gardner made contain the substance of what's in the notes, there may be some specific changes in wording, but the gist of that is in there. But since I hadn't seen that, I think I had a right to check it out.

THE COURT: All right, your objection -is in the record. The defense objection is overruled, the officer may testify as to the contents of this Interview.

BY MR. UPDIKE: (continuing)

Q: Please, if you would?

A: These notes were made during an interview during the 8th of June, 1986. Present during the Interview was Investigator Gardner, Detective Sergeant Beever and myself, and it was at Richmond Police Station in London, England, The interview began by Mr. Gardner completing a Miranda form which was signed by Mr. Soering
at 7:19 p. m.. We started to talk, and we were talking about the clothing that was worn by Mr. Soering at the house called Loose Chippings, and he told us that --- he said that he eventually threw away some socks, and he couldn't, remember exactly where, but he thought it may be in Washington.

He said, I don't know what happened to the socks, that night consists of a series of still life impressions. Then we continued and he talked a little bit about feelings of remorse and regret, and he said that both himself and Elizabeth Haysom hoped that very much that nothing was going to happen that night. Investigator Gardner then had some notes that were taken during an interview where I wasn't present, and he read those notes out to them, and Mr, Soering agreed that they were an accurate summary of the previous interview. There was was an entry in Mr. Gardner's notes about --

MR. NEATON: I am going to object to the contents of Mr. Gardner's notes. He can testify as to what my client said, but the notes of Mr. Gardner are not in evidence and are hearsay.

MR. UPDIKE: It's not hearsay, Your Honor, if the witness is getting ready to say that there was an entry in the notes which were read to Mr, Soering and Mr. Soering agreed that they were correct and then spoke as to a particular extract, and the defendant, said something about that.

THE COURT: If it's dealing with that, then you're not dealing with the substance of an interview, and that's all right. Let's go ahead and proceed, objection overruled.

THE WITNESS: If I can make it clear that at the time Mr. Gardner read his notes out loud. Soering did agree with those notes, and on hearing them read out, he did actually add to them, and that would probably account, should Mr. Gardner's notes be different to mine, that would be the reason, he did add, actually add comments to those notes.

MR. NEATON; Is this in response to a question? I'd ask that it be stricken.

MR. UPDIKE: Well you want to get technical like that, I'll just ask the question, did Mr. Soering add anything to the notes?

THE COURT; Well I think he's already answered it, Let's leave it where it is, go ahead and ask him a question,

BY MR. UPDIKE: (continuing)

Q: Please continue.

A: Yes, sir, Soering said that -- we were talking about the attack on Mr. Haysom, and he said that he cut the side of his throat, and he said that the blood just rushed down and just fell onto his lap, because he said they were sitting at a table. And when Soering stepped slightly behind him and cut him the blood fell down onto his lap, and Soering himself was shocked by this, and he said that he froze. Mr. Haysom looked down at his lap where the blood was, Soering had looked up and he saw Mrs, Haysom running toward him with a knife. At that point we asked him actually about where the knife came from, or what type of a knife was it, and he told us that he threw two knives away in a dumpster.

At that point he actually indicated the size of the knife, and he held his hands about seven or eight inches apart. We then asked about the footwear that he was wearing, and he said that he had been into the house on two occasions, and that on the second occasion he didn't have any tennis shoes on, he had taken his tennis shoes off. He was asked whereabouts in the house that he had been, and he said that he had been on the ground floor, but he had also gone to a bedroom. I'm not exactly sure where that is, but he said that he took a sweatshirt from a closet. He said that when he drove down to the dumpster he went down wearing socks, briefs and a sweatshirt.

He said that the second time in the house he went back to turn the lights off. And he was actually in his stocking feet at that time, and he said he walked through the blood. There was some footprints on the floor and he said that he swished them out with his feet, he swished his feet back and forwards to remove footprints in the blood is what he said. He said he also remembered there was a handprint, he couldn't remember exactly where, out he remembered seeing a handprint, and he said that he rubbed that out as well. He thought that might have been on the floor. He couldn't remember whether the handprint belonged to him or whether it belonged to either Derek Haysom or Nancy Haysom.

He was asked whether or not he had stabbed Mr. and Mrs. Haysom, and he said that during the fight he possibly stabbed him. He said, and this is actually a quotation, he said, "He was still very active, and she wasn't cut and they were both holding me." He had previously told us that while — at the beginning of this incident they had been sitting at the table, an argument bad been going on between the three of them, and Mr. Haysom had been waiving a spoon towards Jens Soering. And he said that he got very angry at one stage and stood up in a rage, and that Mr. Haysom pushed him backwards and he bumped his head on the wall.

At this point in the interview he said that the bump on the head wasn't too serious. He said that Mrs. Haysom was shouting and coming towards him with a knife and the knife was waiving [sic] about all over the place. When he was asked at what stage he cut. Mr. Haysom, he said that. Mr. Haysom was still seated at the time. He said he then got up and attacked Soering, so he used Nancy Haysom as a child [sic, “shield” is probably correct]. During this struggle, Soering's glasses got knocked off.

He was also asked about a cut on Derek Haysom s hand, and he was asked whether or not — excuse me, he was asked whether he was responsible for doing that cut, and he said that it could have been done by himself, Jens Soering, or possibly by Nancy Haysom during the struggle. He said that when he returned from Loose Chippings that night to go back to Washington, D.C. he drove the speed limit and didn't stop. He then went on to talk about how he met Elizabeth Haysom back in Washington,
D.C. and he said that he picked her up at a theater after the movie had finished. He said she was scared shitless like I was. Elizabeth Haysom -- Soering said that Elizabeth Haysom said, said oh, my God.

He said that they returned to the Marriott Hotel in Washington, D.C., and that she went inside the hotel to get some clothes from their room. He then said that he got dressed in the car. We then talked again about the scene and the trip down to the dumpster, and he said that on the way down to the dumpster that he hit a little gray dog. He also showed us some scars on his left hand that he said that he had received a cut during the fight. He said that when he went out of the front door the first time after the struggle with Mr. and Mrs. Haysom he closed the door. When he returned, he said that he didn't need a key to get in, because the door was unlocked.

In fact, at that point we asked him whether or not he had a key, ana he said that he couldn't remember, he said he might have had Elizabeth Haysom's key but he wasn't sure. He said when he went inside the house after returning, he cleaned up a little bit and he turned off the lights. Well he said he thought he turned off the lights. He was then asked whether it was dark when he actually got to the — when he actually arrived for the very first time at the Haysoms' house, and he said that, it was after dark when he got there, but he wasn't sure exactly what time it was,

He was asked how he managed to cut Mrs. Haysom during the struggle and he said that, and this is a quote, "So I cut her on the same side of the throat as Derek Haysom, The lost time I saw her she was going to the kitchen." He told us that he cleaned himself up as well as the house, and he said that he had done that in the kitchen and also in the bathroom, At this point we then talked about the dumpster again, and he said that was where he first noticed the cut hand. He said he washed his hand because it was bleeding quite badly, and wrapped it in a towel, and he made reference to a master bedroom with an on-suite [sic] bathroom.

He was asked about the knife that Nancy Haysom was holding, and he said that was it was some sort of a kitchen knife, medium sized, Again, he talked about the cut on his hand, said he didn't feel the pain until he arrived at the dumpster. He was asked about the scene itself, and he said that there was more blood in the dining room than in the other rooms. He was asked about Nancy Haysom, where he last saw her, and he said that the last time he saw her there was a small pool of blood around her head and she was in the kitchen.

We then talked about Elizabeth Haysom again and he said that the Rocky Horrow [sic] Picture Show had finished at around 2:00 a.m., and that was the arrangements that he had made with Elizabeth Haysom to pick her up around about that time. He said he didn't see either victim fall down. In fact he said that the last time he saw Derek Haysom he was standing like a bear with his arms up in the air, and Derek Haysom was shouting God, you must be crazy man. And he said that he was shouting after him as he left. He said the last time that he saw — he again said the last time he saw Nancy Haysom was walking through the kitchen with hands to her throat. At this point, Mr, Gardner asked Jens Soering if he would re-enact the crimes as he had done so earlier, and what he actually did, Mr. Gardner sat in the chair and Jens Soering stood behind him and went like that., as if to cut somebody's throat, and he did it.

Q: And for the record, you did --- just describe what you did for the record.

A: Yes, sir. He he stepped behind us, slightly to one side, but behind Investigator Gardner, who sat on the chair, and he used his right hand, and he had his thumb like that, or something similar to that. And he actually put his hand as if to support the head, and he went like that, a drawing motion from the left to the right.

Q: Left to right across the throat?

A: Across and down the throat of Mr. Gardner.

Q: Thank you. Please continue, I'm sorry.

A: In fact I actually made notes of what he said, he held Derek Haysom's head and he had the knife in his right hand, and the knife went to the throat of Derek Haysom and he cut it, cut the left side of his throat. Again, we're now talking about the initial struggle. And again, he said that Nancy Haysom came towards him. He said that -- Jens Soering said that he grabbed Nancy Haysom's arm and held it away from him because he was worried about the knife that she had. And he held Nancy's arm towards her own body, This is the point where he said that Derek Haysom was waiving [sic] a spoon at Jens Soering during the earlier conversation.

He said that during the struggle, that Derek Haysom hit him several times. He said there was furniture and things flying. He told us that he picked up a glass when he was cleaning up, picked a glass up from the floor, and he was surprised that it wasn't broken. He was then asked about what the floors were actually made of, and he said that the dining room had a stone floor, the living room had a wooden floor, and the that kitchen was some sort, of plastic stuff.

He then said that when he was driving back t.o Washington, D.C. he was wearing a sweatshirt, briefs and was barefoot. He said that when he actually picked Elizabeth up in Washington D.C., that he still had blood on the towell [sic] around his hand and that Elizabeth got into the car. We then switched back to the scene at Loose Chippings, and he said that when he went back into Loose Chippings he said they were both on the floor not moving. He was then asked about a mouse trap, and he said that he couldn't remember that.

He was asked how he felt at the time during the struggle and afterwards, and he said that he was very scared, and he tried not to leave evidence. He said Derek Haysom was lying on his side, feet out of the door facing the front of the house. He was then asked about an entry tn a diary which was mentioned earlier, excuse me, earlier in this trial, where he says that he remembered the entry about the fingerprints on the coffee cup in the Bedford interview. He couldn't remember which investigator gave him this coffee mug.

He also mentioned lasers at this point, that he had read in a newspaper and heard lately back here in Virginia before he left that a laser machine had been taken in to try and find fingerprints, and he was very worried about that, and that was the reason why he was worried about the Bedford interview with the coffee mug, We then talked about other entries in the diaries, and in particular the wiping clean of rooms and the car, and picking up some stuff from Faulkner, and that's 805 Faulkner [his apartment], He said -- he was asked who picked up the stuff and he said he couldn't remember.

He then said that after the event, both he and Elizabeth Haysom were both concentrating on it not happening. We then talked about, the alibi that he had set up with Elizabeth Haysom, and he said he didn’t want the word alibi, it was more like being super careful in case the worst happened. He was then asked whether or not he took anything from the house, and he said that he took nothing except a sweatshirt and a towel.

He was also asked whether or not Derek and Nancy Haysom were actually expecting to see him that night, and he said as far as he was aware they were surprised to see him at the door when they invited him in. And at that, point we continued, and he said that he was aware that Investigator Gardner had some information that the person that killed Derek and Nancy Haysom had been expected, but he didn't know, as far as he was concerned, they weren't expecting him. He then said that he and Elizabeth Haysom didn't actually go to Lexington or Warrenton [the places they claimed to have accidentally visited to try to explain the extra mileage on their rental car] as far as he knew.

He then continued and said that the following day he and Elizabeth Haysom returned to the University of Virginia, and on the way home he disposed of the sweatshirt and towel. He was asked where he put those items overnight, but he couldn't remember. He was also asked whether or not there was any jewelry, et cetera on Derek, or Nancy Haysom's bodies, he couldn't remember that either.

We then continued, and we talked about the relationship between Elizabeth Haysom and her parents, and he said that he thought that Elizabeth Haysom loved her father, but she was neglected by her parents, and he told us about a dog attack that was supposed to have occurred on Elizabeth Haysom at some earlier age, and he also said that she had been raped in Switzerland. He then was asked a question because of things he had said in earlier interviews, and Jens said that he did not think [personal remarks omitted here].

He said that Elizabeth felt that she loved her father and thought that Nancy Haysom was a bad influence. He was asked how the murders had affected the relationsip between Jens Soering and Elizabeth Haysom, and he said that their relationsip was unchanged by the killings. He then talked about a photograph of Elizabeth Haysom in the nude taken by her mother. He said that she did that a lot, and he also said that photos were shown to visitors by Nancy Haysom. Jens Soering said that he had seen the pictures, because Elizabeth had shown them to him. At the time that these photographs were shown to him, he said that Derek and Nancy Haysom weren't there.

He said there was lots of stories like that sort of thing, nasty things, he said. He then went on to ask us questions about his forthcoming court appearance. He then asked us about writing letters to parents, et cetera. At 9:06 p.m. Mr. Gardner reminded him of his rights. Some quotations were read to him from a letter regarding -- it was a letter written by Elizabeth Haysom wnich mentioned the word vivid. He was also read a quote from his letter written by Jens Soering on the 3rd of January to Elizabeth. Jens said that voodoo is possible, and he went on to say that in Jamaica people die of it if they believe it. He was then read the quotation regarding burglaries. He said to make the murders seem like something else. He was then shown another two letters marked 7 and 8 which he admitted writing. And then I mentioned to him another letter which mentioned 750,000 pounds in the bank, which was actually a small comment on the letter written in French, but he didn't, know anything about that.

We then read him an extract, from Page 10 of the typewritten letter which described a dinner scene, and Jens said that was just coincidence. He was then asked about a drawing that accompanied one of Elizabeth Haysom's letters which he said was — The Seductionof Christian was the theme of the drawing, and that it represented the two figures over the top were Derek and Nancy Haysom, and dominating the lower figure, which is Elizabeth Haysom.

He then went on to talk about Buddhism, and he said something about tempting Buddha away from purity, and said something about agonstic [sic], and said that that means does not [sic] believe in God. He then sat back in the chair and he said, and It is a quotation, "I fell in love with a girl, we talked about killing her parents, I didn't want to do it, I drove to her house and killed them, I got caught."

Q: The defendant seated over here, Jens Soering is the person who made that statement, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir, he did.

Q: I would like, if I might Just quickly, Just for purposes of identification, to identify — you were saving that you read certain extracts, and you identified them, but I just want to make sure that we're clear on which ones were read at the point that you indicated. The October 12 entry of the diary that you read yesterday, and I won't ask you to read the entire entry again at this point.

A: Yes, sir, we read this to him regarding the wiping of fingerprints from the room, and also about the coffee cup used do pick up evidence with.

Q: So when you made reference in your statement, that's what you were referring to?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And the reference to your statement concerning picking up stuff from Faulkner, that is also within that entry.

A: It's in the diary. I believe it's in that entry. Yes, sir, it is.

Q: When you were describing what the defendant said about her father switching off her mother, cold, and you said that was in reference to a letter that you had shown him which you read from yesterday, I think.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: This is the one, while we have it, when you described his response and statements concerning the Picture, this would be that particular picture?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: This is the one. And what was it again, tempting?

A: The Seduction of Christian.

Q : These pages are no longer as they should be. But there is, am I correct, as I look for a reference in this particular letter, the one that Elizabeth Haysom wrote during that Christmas break about her cold, goading father, I think?

A: Yes, sir, it is.

Q: And that was the particular extract read at that time?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: If I could put that back in the envelope. You also mentioned that an extract on Page 10 was read to the defendant?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And would that be from the long typed document from which you read yesterday?

A: That's correct.

Q: And going to Page 10 of that document, would the reference that was read to him at that time, would that have been the reference, my God, how I have got the dinner scene planned out?

A: That's right, sir, he said that was coincidence.

Q: And you showed him letters 7 and 8?

A: Yes.

Q: Marked 7 and 8. Would you, while I'm finding it, describe what you meant by letters marked 7 and 8, In fact I think I have them right here. I'm showing you a document that is marked at the top 6-8-86, Number 7 with the initials RWG, do you know how that came to be?

A: Yes, they are identification marks that were put on that photocopy by Investigator Gardner.

Q: And this, then, is actually a Xerox copy of the long typed document that I just showed you that you all were using during the interview.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So when he said that he wrote this, this is the document that he was talking about.

A: Yes, sir, the one in your left hand is the original, that's the one we showed him.

Q: And this is during the interview itself?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And along those same lines, as to you showing him a letter marked Number 8, and he admitted writing that, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir, he did.

Q: Would this be the Xerox copy that was actually shown to him during the interview and he admitted writing?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And the original was introduced yesterday.

MR. NEATON: I just wanted to see which one you're talking about.

Q: This would be the actual letter referred to as Number 8, the one beginning Dear Liz, um, gone to bed and so forth?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: I would like, as to this letter, to ask you to read just the bottom portion of the page as to what he said that he wrote to Elizabeth Haysom.

A: It says the canceled plans, A, airport, one bottle of Mums; the German stuff was half the price and I didn't want to seem cheap. B, the explanation, a ridiculous notion that I could ever love anyone but you, how could you come up with that one. B, taxi, explanation of foolproof plan for acquiring your lolly. And C, your room.

Q: Now lolly, which is there in quotes, is that an English word with which we might not be familar with?

A: In England lolly is a slang — a phrase used to describe money.