I'm having loads of fun reading these comments, and I sometimes learn something. As for me, I prefer to stick to the facts and obey Occam's razor. Haysom's testimony about staying behind in Washington D.C. is plausible. Assuming anything else immediately raises conundrums and unanswered questions and paradoxes which cannot possible be solved and which don't need to be solved because they are irrelevant.
The notion that Christine Kim voluntarily traveled to Washington, D.C. for some unknown reason to stay in a hotel room alone for some unknown reason to create an alibi for some unknown reason is just plain bonkers. The number of crazy assumptions needed to make this happen just goes on and on. Elizabeth asks Christine to waste an entire evening in Washington D.C. staying in a hotel room, and Kim just says OK, without asking why? And doesn't even keep any of the receipts and evidence to help her friend out with the "alibi"? How does Kim get to Washington, D.C. and back? And once the Haysoms are dead, Kim realizes she was part of a murder plot, and says *nothing*? The idea that an intelligent young woman from an upper-middle class background would participate in faking an alibi is crazy. The idea she wouldn't ask why is crazy. And the idea that she would keep silent when she knows critical evidence to solve a murder case (without implicating herself at all) is crazy.
This is all completely and utterly insane, just absolutely nutso bonkers crazy stuff, like the "moon landing was fake" hoax. Watch this video and ask yourself: How many insane assumptions which grossly violate common sense and experience am I making based upon zero evidence, and why? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqfMv3kYrp8
I love you guys, but you need to touch grass. This case was solved in 1986, and remains solved today. There's nothing to see here.
Andrew, noone has assumed that Kim had spent a night in their hotel room even if the trial facts said that there had been two double beds in the room 😂
So don't try to mixing it up or create a new narrative about it.
You should stick to the facts. And the facts are a manila envelope that had been postmarked on the first of April in 1985 in DC and had enabled a lot of panic in Haysom. Another fact is, that Haysom had said in her trial '87 that she had made 150-200 Dollars and in her interview to Amy Lemley, she had said, that she made 400 bucks in jewel shops, she also had called on Saturday! Well you and Wright should confront yourself that you're ignoring these important points, but fabricating a story about calls to Christin Kim, (the need for cash and missing card number), cause it's written in the timeline by Kim! 🤦But there are no such calls in Kim's stipulation (is this the point where your speculations will get started cause they are needed?)!
In front of investigators and in court Haysom had fabricated a story about buying drugs, whiskey and missing the second ticket for the Rocky Horror picture show based on the lack of money!?
The testimony of the guy at the rental car office, who had testified that a girl had joined Haysom, while bringing in the car, is of no importance, but interesting (where is Soering?).
You had never analyzed those things, neither as an attourney, nor a wanna-be-judge, nor an investigator!! But this is the most exciting point in this case!
An average investigator would count 3-4 red flags right here!
The case was solved in 86???😂😂😂 Cause Soering had told of being filmed on elevator vids, and the wanna-be hero Haysom was in DC?
Well as an attourney, I would assume, that her case was solved in 1987 by herself and Updike and Sweeney. Soering's case was solved in 1990 by the jury, that never had the chance to judge about both being at the scene, based on the overall evidence!! 😁
I appreciate your work but there is nothing going forward. Soering will probably continue his claims forever. We need persons for an interview like peers from UVA, former friends, and so on. This can't continue the way it does. He also needs to be confronted with facts no going along with each other, like the envelope with tax data marked in DC.
You're right. Soering has to be confronted with facts like the manila envelope which had contained Derek's tax declaration. Gardner had done this in October '85, but Soering had given no answers talking this piece of evidence away. As Richard Haysom had stated it related to the question if Elizabeth should get an early Parole: The person who sent it from DC to Veryan is the killer.
So I am 100% d'accord with it. I am also 99% sure about his theory that Soering and Haysom had been together in the house. Therefore the dinner service had to be delivered to their room during their absence. That fits to the evidence that nothing had to be signed! As Soering has no intention to find out the person (if still alive) who could confirm to had organized the room upfront with the couple, there is no testimony. Gardner's investigation concerning evidence at the Marriott was quite poor and one year too late!
Their punishment and their release brought justice according to the fact that both had done this. So even the Haysom's family feel more justice brought along to their own conviction they had made.
As Soering knows that his sentence is wrong he had convinced himself that is was an unfair trial. His and her DNA weren't found at the scene and the only true part in his story was that he told an invented single killer version to the police in order to have a chance to stay together with her 🤦🤦🤦
So his story will go on an on and only she or both can turn this into truth!
Yes, the investigation into the Marriott stay was late and probably not as vigorous as it could have been.
Still, the Haysom murders generated a lot of media attention, and it is puzzling why no hotel employee ever came forward to say that he/she delivered that room service order.
I would consider it possible that in fact nobody was in the room to receive the order. You do not have to be physically on the hotel premises to place an order. A phone call from anywhere would do. And since the order contained meals for two and a whole bottle of liquor, I would consider it a possibility that the hotel employee forged the signature on the receipt and simply kept the liquor bottle. To the German audience: In the US hotel employees are poorly paid, and liquor is expensive.
This employee had of course no way of knowing that Söring and Haysom would not dispute this order since it was part of their alibi. But that all worked itself out nicely for the employee.
And if anybody had asked Söring and Haysom why they had not been there to receive their order, they would have probably come up with one of their hare-brained excuses, like not hearing room service arrive because they were having sex in the bathroom or whatever.
Very speculative, I know. But my point is that the evidentiary value of the room order is the same as that of the movie ticket: Zero.
Well there was only the investigation at the Marriott in 86 in which Yale Feldman, the hotel manager was involved. The problem was, there had been no tip log which is the only thing to give the specific time of the order. We are talking about 14 and 33 bucks. As they had breakfast on Saturday morning the amount of 14 USD was related to breakfast. So it is no problem to tell them we are going out for a day trip. Please bring us XY into our room e.g. at 08. pm. It wasn't necessary to sign anything to get the stripes for proving the room service.
Remember two things. Soering had changed a bar check for 50 bucks on this Saturday. Elizabeth Haysom has sold Jewelry for a profit of 400 USD. So enough cash money to give extra tips to room service and to the movie ticket seller for getting 2 sets of movie tickets with following numbers. Nothing has to be signed, the specific content of a 2 person meal is just speculation, but the bottle of Jack Daniels is just a fairy tale by Haysom. It is a huge problem in this case that the investigators adopted lots of the parts both criminals had been composed and got fooled in reconstructing the truth. Both clearly wanted to hide so much even at their trials. By the way, the man who had been at the rental car station at the time the rental car was brought in, recalled that Haysom had been joined by a girl. So if that is true Christin Kim had a special role and perhaps Soering need a small bandage for a small cut but Harrington's testimony of a bandage and bruise at the funeral seems to be stupid.
Doc Crimescene, according to the Wright Report there is a receipt for room service the night of the murders. It is simply signed “Söring“, but unfortunately nobody went to the trouble of a handwriting analysis. Which means anybody could have signed it, including the hotel employee who delivered the order.
Hotel employees are normally not allowed to leave a room service order unattended when the guest is not present to receive it. Neither inside the room nor in the hallway. The hotel would try to make contact with the guest over the phone and by knocking on the door. If that‘s unsuccessful, the food would be thrown away and still charged to the guest.
There are several good reasons for this, including liability, hygiene etc. I would assume that a reputable establishment like the Marriott would follow these practices and did back in the 80s. Therefore I do not believe that an employee would simply drop the order off in or in front of an unattended room and not come forward later, unless he/she had a good reason. Such as possibly having stolen the liquor. The CCTV footage was lost already, but it would still be interesting to know if the hallway outside Söring‘s and Haysom‘s room would have been monitored by a camera. It would also be interesting to know how difficult it would have been for someone delivering room service to obtain access to the room, let’s say with a housekeeping or maintenance key.
Many complex cases are plagued by inconsistencies, open questions and loose ends. Such as the Jeffrey MacDonald case, in which a paramedic who was attending to the murder victims had stolen MacDonald’s wallet, and not the alleged intruders.
Apart from that, I do not believe that Christine Kim would have had an active role in creating alibis. Even if she did agree to sitting in the hotel room that evening to receive the room service order, it must have occurred to her - the moment she learned of the murders - that she was not just doing her friends a little favor of no consequence, but was in a very serious situation. Helping to create an alibi for a murderer makes you an accessory and comes with a lengthy prison sentence. And Christine Kim had no motive to be part of this double murder. All it would have taken for Kim’s role to be exposed, would have been a hotel employee coming forward to say that the woman in the room appeared to be Asian, and not of European decent like Haysom. By all accounts Kim was an intelligent young woman and had no reason or motive to be part of a double murder.
To keep a short story not too long, if you're just following Wright('s report) you won't end up in the truth, cause he had formed his one one (by adopting Soering's confessions 1:1).
There is nothing signed with "Soering", that was put into evidence even at the trial coming from the Marriott, except the 50-dollar-cheque.
Your golden rule for room services is just made by your own, especially for 1985. Noone knows exactly about the role of Kim but even the fact that both had took a third person to do the timeline could imply that both had been at LC and wanted to make the timeline sounding more credible. The best indication for that is that there had been no calls with Kim cause there had been no reason for them. If you have 450 bucks cash you won't need a card number and this makes sense cause you won't want make your cash trackable (they had bought murder weapons!). There is also no confirmation in her stipulation. Wright doesn't request all this 🤷 He also adopts the timeline, which is obviously more a fake, as truth.
You’re a little hard to understand. Feel free to write in German. All I’m saying is that none of the the stuff that is supposed to show that either Söring or Haysom stayed behind in DC is convincing. And I think it‘s really a stretch to point a finger at Christine Kim. What could have been her motive to protect one if not two double murderers?
I agree with you, Jonas. I don‘t think anything more will come of this unless new witnesses come forward and fresh facts appear. And even then, Söring will most likely dispute and deny them, and time will be on his side.
Imagine, for example, someone suddenly came forward to say that he worked at the Marriott in DC the night of the murders and clearly remembers delivering the room service order to a woman who looked like Elisabeth, and definitely not to a man. Even the staunchest Söring critic would have trouble to believe such a „development“.
Söring has served his sentence and is safe in Germany. Since he has been experiencing some headwind even from German media he‘s just keeping a lower profile. But why would he ever publicly change his story?
I'm having loads of fun reading these comments, and I sometimes learn something. As for me, I prefer to stick to the facts and obey Occam's razor. Haysom's testimony about staying behind in Washington D.C. is plausible. Assuming anything else immediately raises conundrums and unanswered questions and paradoxes which cannot possible be solved and which don't need to be solved because they are irrelevant.
The notion that Christine Kim voluntarily traveled to Washington, D.C. for some unknown reason to stay in a hotel room alone for some unknown reason to create an alibi for some unknown reason is just plain bonkers. The number of crazy assumptions needed to make this happen just goes on and on. Elizabeth asks Christine to waste an entire evening in Washington D.C. staying in a hotel room, and Kim just says OK, without asking why? And doesn't even keep any of the receipts and evidence to help her friend out with the "alibi"? How does Kim get to Washington, D.C. and back? And once the Haysoms are dead, Kim realizes she was part of a murder plot, and says *nothing*? The idea that an intelligent young woman from an upper-middle class background would participate in faking an alibi is crazy. The idea she wouldn't ask why is crazy. And the idea that she would keep silent when she knows critical evidence to solve a murder case (without implicating herself at all) is crazy.
This is all completely and utterly insane, just absolutely nutso bonkers crazy stuff, like the "moon landing was fake" hoax. Watch this video and ask yourself: How many insane assumptions which grossly violate common sense and experience am I making based upon zero evidence, and why? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqfMv3kYrp8
I love you guys, but you need to touch grass. This case was solved in 1986, and remains solved today. There's nothing to see here.
Andrew, noone has assumed that Kim had spent a night in their hotel room even if the trial facts said that there had been two double beds in the room 😂
So don't try to mixing it up or create a new narrative about it.
You should stick to the facts. And the facts are a manila envelope that had been postmarked on the first of April in 1985 in DC and had enabled a lot of panic in Haysom. Another fact is, that Haysom had said in her trial '87 that she had made 150-200 Dollars and in her interview to Amy Lemley, she had said, that she made 400 bucks in jewel shops, she also had called on Saturday! Well you and Wright should confront yourself that you're ignoring these important points, but fabricating a story about calls to Christin Kim, (the need for cash and missing card number), cause it's written in the timeline by Kim! 🤦But there are no such calls in Kim's stipulation (is this the point where your speculations will get started cause they are needed?)!
In front of investigators and in court Haysom had fabricated a story about buying drugs, whiskey and missing the second ticket for the Rocky Horror picture show based on the lack of money!?
The testimony of the guy at the rental car office, who had testified that a girl had joined Haysom, while bringing in the car, is of no importance, but interesting (where is Soering?).
You had never analyzed those things, neither as an attourney, nor a wanna-be-judge, nor an investigator!! But this is the most exciting point in this case!
An average investigator would count 3-4 red flags right here!
The case was solved in 86???😂😂😂 Cause Soering had told of being filmed on elevator vids, and the wanna-be hero Haysom was in DC?
Well as an attourney, I would assume, that her case was solved in 1987 by herself and Updike and Sweeney. Soering's case was solved in 1990 by the jury, that never had the chance to judge about both being at the scene, based on the overall evidence!! 😁
We love you, too, Andrew.😄
Give us something new to work with! How‘s that new true crime case coming?
Andrew,
I appreciate your work but there is nothing going forward. Soering will probably continue his claims forever. We need persons for an interview like peers from UVA, former friends, and so on. This can't continue the way it does. He also needs to be confronted with facts no going along with each other, like the envelope with tax data marked in DC.
You're right. Soering has to be confronted with facts like the manila envelope which had contained Derek's tax declaration. Gardner had done this in October '85, but Soering had given no answers talking this piece of evidence away. As Richard Haysom had stated it related to the question if Elizabeth should get an early Parole: The person who sent it from DC to Veryan is the killer.
https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/ROA-Times/issues/1995/rt9504/950405/04050090.htm
So I am 100% d'accord with it. I am also 99% sure about his theory that Soering and Haysom had been together in the house. Therefore the dinner service had to be delivered to their room during their absence. That fits to the evidence that nothing had to be signed! As Soering has no intention to find out the person (if still alive) who could confirm to had organized the room upfront with the couple, there is no testimony. Gardner's investigation concerning evidence at the Marriott was quite poor and one year too late!
Their punishment and their release brought justice according to the fact that both had done this. So even the Haysom's family feel more justice brought along to their own conviction they had made.
As Soering knows that his sentence is wrong he had convinced himself that is was an unfair trial. His and her DNA weren't found at the scene and the only true part in his story was that he told an invented single killer version to the police in order to have a chance to stay together with her 🤦🤦🤦
So his story will go on an on and only she or both can turn this into truth!
Yes, the investigation into the Marriott stay was late and probably not as vigorous as it could have been.
Still, the Haysom murders generated a lot of media attention, and it is puzzling why no hotel employee ever came forward to say that he/she delivered that room service order.
I would consider it possible that in fact nobody was in the room to receive the order. You do not have to be physically on the hotel premises to place an order. A phone call from anywhere would do. And since the order contained meals for two and a whole bottle of liquor, I would consider it a possibility that the hotel employee forged the signature on the receipt and simply kept the liquor bottle. To the German audience: In the US hotel employees are poorly paid, and liquor is expensive.
This employee had of course no way of knowing that Söring and Haysom would not dispute this order since it was part of their alibi. But that all worked itself out nicely for the employee.
And if anybody had asked Söring and Haysom why they had not been there to receive their order, they would have probably come up with one of their hare-brained excuses, like not hearing room service arrive because they were having sex in the bathroom or whatever.
Very speculative, I know. But my point is that the evidentiary value of the room order is the same as that of the movie ticket: Zero.
Well there was only the investigation at the Marriott in 86 in which Yale Feldman, the hotel manager was involved. The problem was, there had been no tip log which is the only thing to give the specific time of the order. We are talking about 14 and 33 bucks. As they had breakfast on Saturday morning the amount of 14 USD was related to breakfast. So it is no problem to tell them we are going out for a day trip. Please bring us XY into our room e.g. at 08. pm. It wasn't necessary to sign anything to get the stripes for proving the room service.
Remember two things. Soering had changed a bar check for 50 bucks on this Saturday. Elizabeth Haysom has sold Jewelry for a profit of 400 USD. So enough cash money to give extra tips to room service and to the movie ticket seller for getting 2 sets of movie tickets with following numbers. Nothing has to be signed, the specific content of a 2 person meal is just speculation, but the bottle of Jack Daniels is just a fairy tale by Haysom. It is a huge problem in this case that the investigators adopted lots of the parts both criminals had been composed and got fooled in reconstructing the truth. Both clearly wanted to hide so much even at their trials. By the way, the man who had been at the rental car station at the time the rental car was brought in, recalled that Haysom had been joined by a girl. So if that is true Christin Kim had a special role and perhaps Soering need a small bandage for a small cut but Harrington's testimony of a bandage and bruise at the funeral seems to be stupid.
Doc Crimescene, according to the Wright Report there is a receipt for room service the night of the murders. It is simply signed “Söring“, but unfortunately nobody went to the trouble of a handwriting analysis. Which means anybody could have signed it, including the hotel employee who delivered the order.
Hotel employees are normally not allowed to leave a room service order unattended when the guest is not present to receive it. Neither inside the room nor in the hallway. The hotel would try to make contact with the guest over the phone and by knocking on the door. If that‘s unsuccessful, the food would be thrown away and still charged to the guest.
There are several good reasons for this, including liability, hygiene etc. I would assume that a reputable establishment like the Marriott would follow these practices and did back in the 80s. Therefore I do not believe that an employee would simply drop the order off in or in front of an unattended room and not come forward later, unless he/she had a good reason. Such as possibly having stolen the liquor. The CCTV footage was lost already, but it would still be interesting to know if the hallway outside Söring‘s and Haysom‘s room would have been monitored by a camera. It would also be interesting to know how difficult it would have been for someone delivering room service to obtain access to the room, let’s say with a housekeeping or maintenance key.
Many complex cases are plagued by inconsistencies, open questions and loose ends. Such as the Jeffrey MacDonald case, in which a paramedic who was attending to the murder victims had stolen MacDonald’s wallet, and not the alleged intruders.
Apart from that, I do not believe that Christine Kim would have had an active role in creating alibis. Even if she did agree to sitting in the hotel room that evening to receive the room service order, it must have occurred to her - the moment she learned of the murders - that she was not just doing her friends a little favor of no consequence, but was in a very serious situation. Helping to create an alibi for a murderer makes you an accessory and comes with a lengthy prison sentence. And Christine Kim had no motive to be part of this double murder. All it would have taken for Kim’s role to be exposed, would have been a hotel employee coming forward to say that the woman in the room appeared to be Asian, and not of European decent like Haysom. By all accounts Kim was an intelligent young woman and had no reason or motive to be part of a double murder.
To keep a short story not too long, if you're just following Wright('s report) you won't end up in the truth, cause he had formed his one one (by adopting Soering's confessions 1:1).
There is nothing signed with "Soering", that was put into evidence even at the trial coming from the Marriott, except the 50-dollar-cheque.
Your golden rule for room services is just made by your own, especially for 1985. Noone knows exactly about the role of Kim but even the fact that both had took a third person to do the timeline could imply that both had been at LC and wanted to make the timeline sounding more credible. The best indication for that is that there had been no calls with Kim cause there had been no reason for them. If you have 450 bucks cash you won't need a card number and this makes sense cause you won't want make your cash trackable (they had bought murder weapons!). There is also no confirmation in her stipulation. Wright doesn't request all this 🤷 He also adopts the timeline, which is obviously more a fake, as truth.
Doc Crimescene,
They did not pawn jewelry on Saturday. That was more deception. Beever cleared that up in one of the interviews. So they didn't have 450 bucks cash.
You’re a little hard to understand. Feel free to write in German. All I’m saying is that none of the the stuff that is supposed to show that either Söring or Haysom stayed behind in DC is convincing. And I think it‘s really a stretch to point a finger at Christine Kim. What could have been her motive to protect one if not two double murderers?
I agree with you, Jonas. I don‘t think anything more will come of this unless new witnesses come forward and fresh facts appear. And even then, Söring will most likely dispute and deny them, and time will be on his side.
Imagine, for example, someone suddenly came forward to say that he worked at the Marriott in DC the night of the murders and clearly remembers delivering the room service order to a woman who looked like Elisabeth, and definitely not to a man. Even the staunchest Söring critic would have trouble to believe such a „development“.
Söring has served his sentence and is safe in Germany. Since he has been experiencing some headwind even from German media he‘s just keeping a lower profile. But why would he ever publicly change his story?