On June 18, 1990, Jens Söring took the witness stand in the Circuit Court of Bedford County, Virginia. The first part of his testimony that day was a friendly direct examination from his lawyer R.A. Neaton. After Söring explained his story at length (I’ll post it later), the District Attorney of Bedford County, Jim Updike, began his cross-examination of Jens Söring.
I’ll post it all, or at least as much as I can reconstruct from available sources, which is almost everything.
Here’s Part I (with a few explanations):
**** Begin trial transcript:
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. UPDIKE:
Q Mr Soering, I might want to ask you about some of your statements on previous occasions, and things might move along better if I just leave some of these up here.
A Sure.
Q The October '85 statement, June 5, June 6, June 7, June 8, 1986, and the translation of the German statement should you wish to refer to them. Mr. Soering, in October of 1985, at that time you were interviewed by Investigator Gardner and Investigator Reid of the Bedford County Sheriff's Department concerning the events of this weekend?
A Right.
Q And they of course asked you about the discrepancy in the mileage in the car?
A Yes, yes, sir.
Q As shown on the rental agreement. And at that time you lied; didn't you?
A That's correct; yes. I repeated the same thing Elizabeth said in her letter.
Q Elizabeth had lied to protect herself; you lied to protect yourself; correct?
A Yes, we had to escape.
Q And you lied?
A Yes, correct, yes
Q Because you came up with this business about the trip down the Blue Ridge**, and maybe headed towards Lexington, and going back in the opposite direction?
A That's correct, sir.
Q That was absolutely untrue?
A True.
Q Just an attempt to come up with some false explanation to explain the mileage?
A Correct.
Q So, sir, then you admit that you have the capability of lying to protect yourself, don't you?
A I think that's on a rare occasion I actually did lie to protect myself.
Q That was not my question, Mr. Soering. My question is, you admit that you have the capability of lying to protect yourself, don't you?
A I suppose so.
Q You suppose?
A Yes.
Q And you have the capability of lying to accomplish a certain goal, don't you?
A To protect Elizabeth, right.
Q To protect Elizabeth?
A Yes, sir.
Q Then it would follow if you have the capability of lying to protect Elizabeth you most certainly have the capability of lying to protect yourself, correct?
A That would be logical.
Q And if there is a goal to be achieved, protecting Elizabeth, you can lie to accomplish that, you can, then, lie to achieve a particular objective, can't you, sir?
A Yes.
Q And your objective here?
A Is to tell the truth.
Q Is to beat these charges, isn't it?
A Is to tell the truth.
Q And to convince these jurors that you didn't do anything, correct?
A That's the truth, yes.
Q You are capable of doing that, right?
A Of telling the truth.
Q It follows logically, doesn't it. if you capable of lying to protect yourself, capable of protecting Elizabeth, capable of lying to accomplish a certain goal?
A (Witness nods head in the affirmative.)
Q Then you're certainly most capable of lying to these people.
A (Witness nods head in the affirmative.) But that's not what I am doing here.
Q In order to beat these charges, get out from under them, aren't you?
A That's not what I'm doing,
Q Aren't you capable of doing it?
A Theoretically, but that's not what I am doing.
Q You are, then, the answer is?
A Theoretically, yes.
Q Theoretically, yes?
A Yes.
Q Why is it theoretically here where as to the other instances you had to readily admit to your capability of deception and your capability for lying?
A Because in one case I'm lying to protect Elizabeth, and tne other I'm just telling what happened, as of this point you cannot do anything to Elizabeth anymore.
Q Well I would like to discuss that with you a little bit more later You have thought about this quite a bit, haven't you, Mr. Soering?
A Four years.
Q Since 1986?
A I have been in jail for four years.
Q Since 1986?
A Right.
G And during that period of time you received -- well the extradition documents that I prepared, and were forwarded the to the country of England, right?
A Those were very limited, but yes.
Q Very limited?
A Sure.
Q And you also received documents that were prepared in England as to your extradition, right?
A The documents that I received for extradition as I recall consisted of the June 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th statements, and that was it as far as the evidence was concerned. That's what I recall.
Q But I mean I know I did them, but they weren't all that limited, were they, Mr. Soering? Do you recognize these things? They now have the ribbons of our country on them, and of England.
A Uh-huh,
Q And that’s a lot of information in there that first came to England in 1986, correct?
Q It looks more or less the same size to me.
A And during your period of incarceration, you had nothing else to do other than to study these?
Q Those four statements, yes I did not have access to the forensic evidence, for example.
Q And there were statements of witnesses in there, correct?
A Like who?
Q Like Annie Massie, like Clarence Meadows, like Crenshaw, Doug Crenshaw?
A As I recall, those witnesses just said about finding the bodies.
Q My question to you was there were statements from witnesses in here.
A Not anything that was of any help, if that's what you mean,
Q The autopsy report, an affidavit from Dr. Oxley, that was all there, wasn't it?
A I don't recall; if you say so.
Q If I say so? Autopsy pictures were enclosed, these are actual photographs, aren't they?
A I was given back black and white copies, I think my lawyers were, too,
Q Exhibit 14, affidavit of Dr. David W. Oxley, that was included, right?
A Yes
Q And there are the autopsy reports as to Derek Haysom and Nancy Haysom, right?
A Yes.
Q And those were forwarded in July of 1986?
A Right.
Q And then we forwarded additional information in December of 1986, didn't we, including the copies of the tapes which these ladies and gentlemen have heard, they're still sealed the way Ricky sealed them December 1, 1986?
A Right.
Q Transcripts?
A Uh-huh-
Q You have had a lot of information to consider and nothing else to do but consider it for these past four years, isn't that correct, Mr. Soering?
A I have had some of the information, yes.
Q Well this information?
A That information that I have got, yes.
Q And then you began developing different plans as to how you were going to get out of this, or how you were going to try to get out of this, didn't you, based upon your thoughts and your analysis of the best lie that you could tell?
A No.
Q You did not?
A No.
Q In fact you had more than one plan, you had some several plans, didn't you?
A Well, there were various legal possibilities of getting myself extracted to Germany, but that is it, if that's what you mean.
Q And in June of 1986, specifically June 5, 1986, you stated on Page 25 of the transcript when you stated initially that you didn't have a good memory and Investigator Gardner challenged you, well aren't you an Echols scholar and you came back and said yes. And he came back and said, well don't you have a good memory? And you said, that's right, that's why I didn't do very well in math, because in other subjects I could talk my way or write my way out of a corner, even if I didn't have the facts, didn't you say that?
A Yes, sir, that's part of history term papers, I suppose that's true.
Q And that's what you have tried to do for these people, isn't it, to talk your way out of this corner that you're in?
A No.
Q And you wrote concerning your different plans -- let me show you the letter of October 4, 1986, you're telling Elizabeth that you had these different plans, and that she should keep quiet so as to not jeopardize them or spoil them, am I correct? I'll refer you to a specific entry.
A Right.
Q We'd ask that this letter be introduced, we have previously provided it. And I am going to ask you about an entry on the first page. ‘If I go to Germany’.
(LETTER MARKED AS COMMONWEALTH'S EXHIBIT 361. )
A If I go to Germany and get convicted I will go away only a few years, and the trial if it takes place in Europe, will not be a hyped-up emotional publicity case, since the star attraction, me, is missing.
Q Thank you.
A I was hoping to go to Germany, like I said.
Q You're the star attraction, Mr, Soaring?
A Well, yes, obviously.
Q Because you're the one who did it?
A I was the one who said I did it, yes.
Q The next page as to these plans, the first full paragraph where it begins, Barker, and doesn't it read, Barker may have spoken with you about other aspects of our past, and I sincerely hope you keep 100 percent quiet and non-committal. If not, at least one plan of mine may have been permanently scuttled.
A Sure.
Q You wrote that to Elizabeth Haysom?
A That's correct, yes, sir.
Q Telling her to keep quiet, because if she doesn't, at least one of your plans may be scuttled?
A That's correct. That was the point, that I was extremely worried Elizabeth might tell the truth, and there's reference to that in these interviews, too.
Q She might tell the truth?
A That's right.
Q Down that same page you write to Elizabeth, for now, have you found that, for now, trust me that I am doing what's best for both of us, I have been working very, very hard on several different practical plans, as has my father, the embassies here and in Washington?
A Oh, I see that, okay.
Q And the German and American State Departments ?
A Right. This is the information I was given about extradition, yes, trying to get to Germany.
Q Trying to work on different plans to get to Germany?
A That's right.
Q And you have already stated that at the time of the German interview in December of 1986 you had a German counsel there, and you also had the counsel of Mr. Richard Neaton at that time.
A Yes, sir, he advised me to give that interview with the German police so I could go to Germany.
Q So that you could go to Germany?
A Right.
Q Did they advise you, Mr. Neaton and your German counsel, to lie so as to go to Germany?
A No, they told me to —
Q And you didn't didn't lie, did you?
A They told me to say what I did to the American police, and I did.
Q They told them that you, to go to Germany, had to tell them enough of the truth to warrant a case of extradition to Germany.
A. They said I had to provide enough evidence for them to charge me, yes.
Q And you say that you lied to them anyway?
A That's correct, sir, to the German police. They said I had to provide enough evidence. That's the only way I would go back to Germany, I had to give them evidence.
Q And the only way according to you that you could escape a decision by a jury in Bedford County, Virginia?
A Yes.
Q Was lying?
A That's correct.
Q It didn't work?
A No, it didn't
Q So you're lying to persuade them and confuse them and mislead them?
A No, I'm not.
Q These plans of yours, Mr. Soering, you got together and you thought about and you went through these extradition papers?
A That was with the advice of my lawyers.
Q With the intent of misleading country people?
A Huh?
Q Misleading country people here in Virginia.
A I don’t think it makes any difference where you're from, but I mean yes, of course, the point was to go to Germany.
Q Because in your next letter you write, don't you, concerning your American connections, and what you're trying to do with American connections, you write to Elizabeth Haysom, “my optimism is well founded, sweetie, remember, I'm always the pessimist, not you. Those yokels don't know what's coming down.”
A I wrote that, yes.
Q And you wrote that right after you made a reference to me, didn't you? Here's the actual letter.
A Mr. Updike, the reason why I wrote that is that I was personally surprised that we managed to convince you people, if that's all right.
Q But those yokels don't know what's coming down?
A Is this the one?
Q Yes, sir. And I will refer you to the page. Have you found it?
A Yep, the very top.
Q It's a letter that you wrote to Elizabeth Haysom on October 22, 1986, didn't you? And you continue after the reference to me, “anyway, let me tell you about some interesting friends of ours in the U.S., a federal judge, a DA in Virginia”, but that wasn't me, now was it?
A No, sir, that's what I was told.
Q Certainly not. “A DA in Virginia, and various German and U.S. governmental agencies, things are going to be okay. My optimism is well founded, sweetie, remember, I'm always the pessimist, not you, those yokels don't know what's coming down.”
A That's right, I wrote that.
Q And you still think we don't know what's coming down, don't you?
A Absolutely not. I don't think you do, that's correct, yes. I mean to put it bluntly, I don't know how you can believe me.
Q Mr. Soering, what it comes down to is what these jurors believe at the end of this case in their deliberations. We'd like to introduce this, too, Your Honor, thank you.
(LETTERS MARKED AS COMMONWEALTH'S EXHIBITS 361 & 362.)
Q Mr. Soering, are you trying to say that before these murders, that you and Elizabeth didn't talk about the death of her parents?
A Um, Elizabeth fantasized about them, yes, that's true.
Q Excuse me?
A We talked about it in the way of her fantasizing about it as in the letters, yes.
Q Her fantasizing about it?
A And I responded to that.
Q And you responded as well.
A That's correct.
Q Because in the German interview you had all kinds of fantasies about the death of Derek and Nancy Haysorn, didn t you? It's there, and I can refer you to the page.
A Oh, in the other letters.
Q Yeah You talked about Mr. Derek Haysom, rolling him off a hill in a car?
A That's correct, yes.
Q You said that, didn't you?
A Yes, I did.
Q About a bomb to their house, you said that, didn't you?
A Yes, I did.
Q You said something about Piranha fish in the bathtub for the Haysoms?
A That's right,
Q So before their deaths, you were fantasizing about their deaths as well, weren't you?
A No, that's what I told the German police.
Q But you admitted a minute ago that you were communicating with Elizabeth as well.
A Elizabeth and I talked about her parents, yes.
Q And you responded?
A In the letters, yes.
Q And you were fantasizing about their deaths?
A She certainly was. I knew that she was very unhappy.
Q Have you still got your Christmas diary out there? I don't see it in here now.
A No, I don't think so.
Q Mr. Neaton, would you have that?
NEATON: The exhibit?
UPDIKE: Yes, that came out of this package. Unless I'm overlooking it, and I may very well.
NEATON: I think I have it here.
UPDIKE: Thank you.
BY MR. UPDIKE: (continuing)
Q There is yours, here's hers?
A Right.
Q And sir, wnere she says in that letter, I think we can all recite it without any of us finding it, would it be possible to -- second page of the letter, “would it be possible to hypnotize my parents, do voodoo on them, will them to death. It seems my concentration on their death is causing them problems.”
A Sure
Q She was writing that to you, wasn't she?
A That's correct.
Q She was fantasizing about the deaths of her parents, wasn't she?
A That's right.
Q She was trying to manipulate you, wasn't she?
A I think she was trying to gain sympathy, and that's manipulation in itself, yes.
Q She says as this continues she was trying to manipulate you, and you agree with that?
A In the letter? Sorry.
Q Through the letters and throughout this period of time leading up to --
A Sure, she was trying to get my sympathy and things like that.
Q Was she trying to manipulate you?
A Yes.
Q Yes, of course, She's trying to manipulate you to kill her parents, wasn't she?
A Of course not.
Q Well here she's stating, would it be possible to hypnotize my parents, do voodoo on them, will them to death? My concentration on their death is causing them problems. She's writing this to you at Christmas time?
A That's right.
Q She wants them dead, and she's telling you that?
A That's right.
Q She follow with the manipulations concerning —
A That's why I- sympathized with her afterwards. I mean I knew that she had a deep and bitter resentment toward her parents.
Q But at the top of the page there, before we get to that reference she makes the statement that we refer to, there have been many burglaries in this area, right?
A That's right.
Q And then on the Page 19 of your diary, you respond as you have indicated?
A That’s right.
Q And you're writing a written response to the statement, there have been many burglaries here.
A Right.
0 And you come back, you come back and say that the fact that there have been many burglaries in this area – “the fact that there have been many burglaries in the area opens the possibility for another one with the same general circumstance?”
A Yes
Q “Only this time the unfortunate owners...”
A Right.
Q You write that?
A That's right. In the same general vein.
Q And on June the 8th, 1986 when Detective Constable Terry Wright shows you that same letter and asks you about that same entry, you say that the reason that you wrote that was to make the murders look like something else, didn't you?
A Pardon me, when was that supposed to be, on June the 8th?
Q The very last interview with you, June 8th, 1986 when all three officers were there, Wright, Beever and Gardner.
A (Witness shakes head in the negative.)
Q He has testified to that.
A They did? I’m surprised, that’s not accurate.
Q Do you recall him reading that from his notes?
A Sure, I believe they were handwritten notes. They're probably accurate notes. I mean I know what I said.
Q Wait a minute. Now we are so anxious to solve this, and these guys are not going to take down accurately what you have got to say, not interested enough?
A (Witness nods head in the affirmative.) Repeat handwritten notes.
Q First of all, let's clear up, did you say that?
A Pardon me, say what, the June 8th?
Q Did you say that this entry that you wrote concerning burglaries, that you wrote that because of trying to make the murders look like something else?
A But that's not what happened, is it.
Q I'm asking you whether you said it. Did you say it or are you saying Detective Constable Wright lied?
A I'm saying that they probably misinterpreted these notes that they made at the time of the interview.
Q All right. Let me show you a copy of the notes. Here's at the very end of the interview that Sunday night, he asked you about the voodoo reference, he writes down your response He refers you to the burglaries and he's got your response there, hasn't he, written in his own handwriting.
A …to make the murders seem like something else.
Q Yes.
A Yes Well that's what he's got written there.
Q And he said that he wrote down your responses. So my question remains, did you say this to those three police officers on June 8th when asked about that entry concerning burglars, that that was to make the murder seem like something- else?
A Well I think that's probably another misunderstanding.
Q Did you say it?
A No, It's the same as their misunderstanding about the voodoo business.
Q So you're disputing what the officer said?
A I'm disputing the interpretation of the notes five years later.
Q Well if you were Just trying to protect Elizabeth, you would have gone on and said that, wouldn't you? Who are you protecting now when you say that you didn’t say that, are you protecting Elizabeth or Jens Soering?
A I'm stating now what I think I had in my mind when I wrote these letters.
Q What you think now?
A That’s right.
Q After four years of incarceration in England, after going through those papers, after thinking about it, after formulating the plans and knowing that you're coming back before some yokels?
A Look. These letters were in response to Elizabeth to her fantasies, okay? And that's all they were and that's all I took them to be. Now there was no burglary staged at the scene of crime, okay?
Q I'm not saying there was.
A And on June 8th, during a very long interview, this policeman made a brief note, for example when I explained --
Q I’m not asking you about examples, I’m asking you about this particular entry. I’m not saying there was a burglary. I am going back to my original question, and that is before the murders, you and Elizabeth Haysom were talking about the death of her parents, not only Elizabeth but you as well.
A In fantasy. She said things like that, if that’s what you mean.
Q Whether it’s fantasy, whether it’s reality, you admit that you were saying it?
A Well, there’s no question we discussed murder.
Q Do you admit that you were saying it, Mr. Soering?
A I said those things in the letters, yes.
Q And in regards to her speaking as to the voodoo, willing them to death, whether it' fantasy, whether it's reality, you admit that in response to her statement, you come back and say yes, it's a possibility.
A That's right.
Q And you admit in this letter that you write that in other places you're talking about their deaths?
A (Witness nods head in the affirmative.)
Q Now you have offered your long explanations to these people, but you still admit, don't you, you were talking about Derek Haysom's death?
A Sure, yes, I did.
Q At this point in time, you hadn’t even met the man, had you?
A That’s correct, yes, sir, I only know what Elizabeth told me about him.
…**
Q Then you talk at the middle of the page ** Xmas letter response about the taste of death of your ubiquitous enemies’ blood that you drank in your sleep.
A D.H. Lawrence, “Oppression Officer”.
Q I don't see any quotation to that. But at any rate, whether someone else wrote it or not, you' re incorporating it and you're using it, correct?
A That's right, yes. It's a valid point.
Q You're talking about this side of you that wishes to kill, aren't you?
A I think every human being has that potential, and that's why I said, every time we cheer Charles Bronson in the movies, that's that part of you. And it's the part that I say I find overwhelmingly horrible, that aggressive part of everybody.
Q But continuing with that quote you say, “I have not explored the side of me that wishes to crush to any real extent.”
A That's correct.
Q “I have yet to kill.”
A Right.
Q You’re saying in January that you have yet to kill?
A That's right. It's an exaggeration, it’s an exaggerated statement of my point.
Q And you continue with that point about four lines from the bottom stating that you're standing in front of a door in some huge wall?
A Uh-huh.
Q You continue on the next page?
A I hope that I will be released and absolved of this side, because I find it overwhelmingly horrible.
Q And the next page you state the last to the second paragraph, regarding that door, “I feel I have been standing here too long, it's time to move but I’m deadly afraid. For what will happen to me when I cross that threshold?”
A (Witness nods head in the affirmative.) That's right. And I'm talking about Taoistic attitude, which is basically about peace, and Buddhism and things like that.
Q That's all in terms of the D.H. Lawrence, T.S. Elliott?
A Well I can't help my upbringing.
Q Mr. Soering, what I am saying is you are writing at this point after you have received this most horrible letter from Elizabeth Haysom.
A That's right.
Q Concerning voodoo, willing her parents to death and everything, as a result of her manipulations in January you're writing about standing on the threshold of violence.
A No, I'm not, exact opposite.
Q And you're contemplating whether you will cross that threshold into violence or not.
A But you didn't read the end of the sentence the unlocked doors as you were talking about, the rest of the sentence reads, “I keep feeling, maybe hoping that I will be released, absolved of this side, and why, because I find this overwhelmingly horrible. See, you're picking little bits of sentences out when I'm making exaggerated points, and I mean the whole point of the letter is in the first paragraph. Everybody has a violent side, every man is a potential war criminal, and I find that overwhelmingly horrible. And then I discuss that, because it's part of everybody.
Q But you were writing this at that point, though, you were contemplating doing it.
A What, war crimes?
Q You were contemplating walking through that door.
A Absolutely not. Absolutely not. I'm saying, it's overwhelmingly horrible, it's right here.
Q I'm not disputing that with you, Mr. Soering. To do this to two people such as Derek and None Haysorn, it is overwhelmingly horrible, isn't it? You can't dispute that, now can you?
A I didn't know. If I had known, maybe I would have turned Elizabeth in. All she told me is that she killed them.
Q You got these extradition papers with all of the pictures, some of the same ones -
A It was too late at that point, I had already said all these things in all these statements. I mean it's pretty clear that by December ‘86 I didn’t love her anymore.
Q You had them, and most certainly your attorneys had them when you made your statement to the Germans.
A That's right. And at that point —
Q And you still continued, didn't you?
A That's right, because that was the only way to get to Germany.
Q You still continued with this statement of exactly what you did.
A It was the only way to get to Germany.
Q Only way you could get to Germany.
A Right.
Q The letter that she wrote you from Colorado, the Ramada Inn letter?
A Right.
Q That's up there?
A No, it isn't, I have just got that one right there, sorry.
Q She's trying — Elizabeth Haysom has testified before these people, she has admitted that what she was trying to do when she wrote that letter was manipulate you.
A That's true, yes.
Q Do you agree with her that she was manipulating you?
A Yes, sure.
Q Of course she wasn’t, was she?
A Sure. Could you give me a second so I can find it? Right, okay
Q You have found it?
A Yes.
Q And she tells you this -- well this rubbish about Lady Astor, Eaton Square.
A (Witness nods head in the affirmative.)
Q Well she was related to Lady Astor, wasn't she?
A I don't know.
Q But a far as Eaton Square?
A Yes, all that nonsense, yes.
Q She says on Page 5 about her parents, they are now ruling over me, because if I'm a good girl I will be rich, but until they die, they will hold out?
A That's right.
Q While she's manipulating you she's talking about her parents' death?
A That's correct. But not about killing them at all. She wants to run away, she says that later on. And the key line is this one.
Q I didn't ask you about that, Mr. Soering, you're obviously extremely well familar with these, aren't you?
A I certainly am.
Q I would suggest moreso than I am, certainly aren't you? I just ask you about one entry and you want to refer to another one, why is that, Mr. Soering?
A Because you're misinterpreting the letter.
Q I just asked you about that one sentence written by Elizabeth Haysom, that wasn't even written by you.
A That's right.
Q Why did you want to jump and talk about
something eIse?
A Because you're saying that her letter manipulated me, and I'm trying to explain what I got from this letter.
Q My question was she was writing to you about her parents dying.
A Yes, that's right, but not about killing them.
Q And fine, that's the answer to my question.
A Okay.
Q But you didn't pay any attention to the manipulations, did you or didn't you?
A Well I certainly didn't leave UVA for them. But the problem was resolved approximately two weeks later.
Q You realize she makes reference in this letter to her perversions of truth?
A That's right, yes. The whole last section is about that.
Q By that time, you were used to her perversions of truth, weren't you?
A Yes. And unfortunately, I participated in that, it sticks with my whole life.
Q And you come back and write a letter in response to this in which you state that you have become accustomed to her, I think you call it POT's, perversions of truth.
A I don't think I said that in that letter, but I think it's quite possible.
Q Terry Wright showed it to you on June 8, 1986 and asked you about it, don't you remember?
A No, I don't. But please.
Q The one that he read begins Dear Liz, hm, do you remember it now?
A No.
Q Hm, hm for — i have got a copy of it here, and I think that the original should be right there in front of you.
A I don't think I have ever seen a copy of this one.
Q Well, I’ll show you the copy of it. This should be it right here.
A Right.
Q You have seen it, haven't you, and you wrote it?
A Actually, I don't recall seeing it, but obviously it's mine, yes.
Q If I can have the copy and you can have the original.
A Sorry.
Q That was in that same package with the rest of them?
A Right.
Q The Paragraph C that you write about the perversions of truth?
A Right.
Q Paragraph D about the manipulativeness of the letter situation?
A Right.
Q When you say — you were responding to her Ramada Inn letter in which she talks about she's manipulated you, she's a apologized for that, for her perversions of the truth, about the manipulativeness of the letter situation, I'll explain in more detail. “But to ease your mind somewhat, when I read that I laughed without sarcasm, bitterness for one-half hour after reading them.”
A Right
Q You wrote that?
A Right
Q So Elizabeth Haysom was trying desperately to manipulate you, but you knew that she was doing that?
A Well she admitted that, yes of course
Q I’m asking if you admitted it by writing this letter.
A I knew some of what she was up to, yes, obviously.
Q You knew she was manipulating you.
A About some things, sure. Most particularly about that trip to Europe.
Q And what this letter is all about is you got upset when the Haysoms went to pick her up instead of you on her trip back from Colorado, didn’t you? You had even bought a bottle of Champagne.
A Yes, I remember that, yes.
Q That’s the paragraph A on the last page of that letter, airport, one bottle of Mumm’s, not the cheap German stuff. You had bottle of champagne to welcome Elizabeth home.
A Right
Q And she didn’t show up, she was with her parents. You didn’t want to buy her the cheap stuff?
A Right, well, we drank it afterwards, there was no problem there.
Q But that’s what you wrote, I don’t know how much it cost, Mr. Soering.
A Right.
Q Taxi, hyphen, explanation of foolproof plan for acquiring your lolly?
A That’s right.
Q Again, she wrote about lolly in the Ramada Inn letter, you’re writing about it, too?
A But that’s – I mean I know what you’re getting at.
Q Just answer my question, regardless of what I am getting at, Mr. Soering, you wrote that, didn’t you?
A Yes, that’s right.
Q So at this point, this is the middle of March, she is trying to manipulate you, you know what’s going on.
A Some of it, yes, sure, but I loved her anyway.
Q You wanted to prove your love for her?
A Huh?
Q Didn’t you want to prove your love for her?
A Not in the sense that you mean.
Q Wasn’t it really the only way you could prove your love for her?
A Of course not. Going out and killing her parents, that’s bizarre.
Q I’m asking you. There was no physical way you could prove your love for her, now was there?
A Of course there was. You want me to show it to you? Could I have the Christmas diary letter, I’ll show you.
Q You talk about sexual dysfunction in your diary letter, don’t you?
A That’s right. The first time Elizabeth and I tried to make love I lost my erection.
Q I’m not asking about any specifics, Mr. Soering.
A Uh-huh.
Q Isn’t it true that the first time you made love to Elizabeth Haysom was the night that her parents were buried?
A Absolutely not.
Q Or excuse me, the memorial service.
A Absolutely not. There’s a reference to having sex in the diary, full intercourse.
Q You write quite a good game, don’t you Mr. Soering. You write about it.
A OK, how about that sheet that Christine wrote up, there is a reference in there as well.
Q It’s in the writing, I understand that, Mr. Soering.
A Yes.
Q It’s throughout your writing. I fact you write in England a 20-page letter.
A In response to hers, yes. Hers of May 28th, mine of June 3rd.
Q You were afraid you were going to lose Ms. Haysom, am I correct there?
A What? When, during 1985?
Q Uh-huh.
A Absolutely not, no, why? We were very much in love.
Q So you all go to Washington. And I’m interested in what you’re saying now that the alibi was all about. First of all, do you agree that an alibi was prepared in Washington, D.C.?
A That’s correct.
Q So you’re in agreement with Elizabeth Haysom there.
A Well, I mean that’s what I thought. I thought I was part of the conspiracy to commit murder, that’s why I accepted that, it was something we did.
Q The Washington trip was an alibi, yes?
A No, the trip wasn’t, no.
Q While in Washington, did it become an alibi, was it an alibi?
A Sure, on Saturday afternoon.
Q On Saturday?
A It was discussed.
Q And I need to understand exactly what you’re saying. This was about Elizabeth wanted to come from Washington, D.C. to Charlottesville to deliver some drugs to someone?
A That’s correct, yes.
Q That she picked up?
A Oh, no. She was supposed to pick up drugs in Washington, D.C., she wasn’t driving straight back to Charlottesville.
Q Tell me again, just briefly, what was she supposed to do?
A OK, she was supposed to pick up drugs in Washington, D.C., and bring it back to Charlottesville to pay off her debts with the person that she told me was her drug dealer, Jim Farmer. And I knew that Jim Farmer had been giving her drugs.
Q And she told you that, you say, on Saturday?
A That’s correct. But I knew that Jim Farmer had been giving her drugs before that, but I thought she quit.
Q Why are you so interested in attacking this individual? I haven’t asked you about him.
A (Witness shakes head in the negative.) I don’t believe it’s actually true. I think now it’s lies.
Q Let’s not talk about it, then, if you don’t think it’s true. Let’s talk about what you think is true, is that all right?
A Okay.
Q Now, so you’re in Washington on Saturday and you’re saying that Elizabeth Haysom says to you, well, I know that you’re not going to like this, but I have to take some drugs back to an individual in Charlottesville.
A That’s correct.
Q You don’t like that, you say.
A That’s correct.
Q But you go along with it, you say.
A Yes.
Q The why don’t you say, well Elizabeth, if it’s got to be done, let’s just you and I ride on down to Charlottesville?
A Well, that’s what I said to her. She said that this person she was supposed to be meeting was expecting one person, her, and apparently I’m the kind of person who is suspicious to drug dealers, that’s why I couldn’t come along.
Q That’s your explanation?
A That’s what she said to me.
Q Haven’t you dressed that up quite a bit? I mean Mr. Soering, if she absolutely had to do this, you lived in Charlottesville, didn’t you?
A That’s right.
Q You could have ridden down from Washington with her, right?
A No.
Q You didn’t absolutely have to be present when a delivery of drugs was made to this individual, now did you? She could have let you off at your dorm.
A You’re confusing two things. What happened in Washington, D.C. was she was supposed to pick up a package of drugs that afternoon on Saturday. We were supposed to drive them down on a Sunday. So on that actual Saturday, there was no driving down to Charlottesville. What she said was that she was going to pick up some drugs and then they were going to be brought down to Charlottesville.
Q There was no driving to Charlottesville on Sunday?
A That’s what she told me, yes.
Q I mean on Saturday?
A That’s why I expected her back at the hotel
Q I mean on Saturday?
A That’s why I expected her back to the hotel at sevenish, eightish. I didn’t think it would take that long. All she wanted to do on Saturday in Washington was pick up the drugs, what she told me.
Q Did you state that earlier, Mr. Soering?
A I did, yes.
Q That she wasn’t telling you that she was coming from Washington down to Charlottesville on Saturday?
A The drugs were supposed to be delivered to Charlottesville but not on that Saturday, okay?
Q On Sunday?
A Well, whatever, that weekend, yes.
Q Monday, Tuesday?
A That weekend.
Q You weren’t going to be present when they were delivered, you were going to be in Charlottesville, but not present?
A Well, I don’t know whether I was going to be present when the –
Q What do you mean you don’t know?
A It never came to that.
Q I thought you said that Elizabeth said that you were the type that would cause suspicion on the part of a drug dealer?
A That’s correct, but I knew Jim Farmer.
Q You’re getting confused, aren’t you, Mr. Soering?
A No, you are, because you’re trying to confuse the jury.
Q I want you to explain to me. Is this funny, Mr. Soering? You’re on trial for first degree murder, two counts of it.
A That’s right.
Q Is it humorous to you? It’s not to me, is it to you?
A No, of course not, Mr. Updike, I did not know –
Q Is this a game?
A -- the drugs were in Washington, D.C.
Q Is this a game to you?
A Of course not.
Q Is it an intellectual challenge for you?
A No, it isn’t.
Q It certainly wouldn’t be a challenge for you with your intellect to outwit me, would it?
A Well, I think so far you have been outwitting me.
Q I just can’t understand, sir, why you at times are sitting up there under these circumstances on trial for murder, laughing?
A I’m not laughing.
Q Haven’t you laughed, didn’t you laugh just a few minutes ago?
A I smiled because you were trying to mislead the jury. There was a man in Washington, D.C. is what she told me. I didn’t know this person, obviously. This is all nonsense, anyway, this is a lie she told me to manipulate me. But she told me that I could not go along to see this person in Washington, D.C., because that person would find me suspicious. I already knew who Jim Farmer was, obviously Jim Farmer wouldn’t find me suspicious because he already knew me. And he was in Charlottesville.
Q So then you agreed to this alibi.
A That’s correct, yes.
Q Were you supposed to buy tickets, two tickets?
A That’s right, yes.
Q For which film?
A The five o’clock show, ‘Witness’ was the first one.
Q Five o’clock show of ‘Witness’.
A That’s right.
Q Which studio?
A Which studio? If you’re facing north it’s on the lefthand side of the road, as I recall. It’s a modern theatre. I recall the outside of it being white, gray, it’s a first-run movie theatre.
Q And the second one, please, which one is that?
A After I returned to the hotel I expected her to be – well first of all I cashed the check as I recall. Then I went upstairs, waited for her, she didn’t come for a couple hours, then I ordered room service, ate, left at about 9:30, and went to ‘Stranger in Paradise’ which is again on Wisconsin Avenue on the righthand side facing north.
Q Do you know the name of that theatre?
A I don’t know the name of it, I can describe it to you. It’s older architecture, it’s a big stone set in concrete as I recall, and sort of – I guess sort of an angled roof to it, it’s a much smaller theatre.
Q Elizabeth said the other day that she was supposed to take notes for you to be able to describe the architecture, is that just a coincidence that you know it so well?
A No, I think that’s another one of her total lies.
Q But you nevertheless know it, don’t you?
A That’s correct.
Q And the third film?
A ‘Rocky Horror Picture Show’.
Q Location?
A As I recall it, it’s right in the center of Georgetown. Only thing I remember about that is going through some sort of arcadish place, it’s not sort of a real theater, that’s how I remember it anyway.
Q It’s above M Street, isn’t it?
A I have no idea where M Street is.
Q You know a lot of details now five years later about these movies, the order in which you attended them and the descriptions of the theaters.
A I have reason to remember it, it was a terrible night.
Q So in October of 1985 you knew about those details then concerning the movies?
A That’s correct.
Q During the interviews in June of ’86 you knew those details then?
A Yes.
Q You knew those details in December of ’86 during the German interview?
A I assume so, yes.
Q You assume so?
A Obviously, sorry, yes.
Q Sorry? The question is, why did you buy two tickets and keep them from the night before, though, Friday night?
A Well, unfortunately Elizabeth and I – well, I was a hoarder if you want to call it that. When I was arrested in England they arrested us with this gigantic big folder –
Q I’m not asking about England, I’m talking about this weekend.
A Right
Q See a movie, get a hamburger at Hamburger Hamlett and you get a receipt and keep it?
A That’s right.
Q Is that logical to you?
A No it isn’t, but unfortunately I didn’t do many logical things.
Q You don’t have any logical explanation, then, for doing that?
A We kept mementos like that. We kept all our notes that we wrote each other, all our letters.
Q Of a hamburger?
A That’s right.
Q Mr. Soering, what happened was that you all had discussed what was going to happen that weekend, that Derek and Nancy Haysom were going to die that weekend.
A No.
Q And you wanted an alibi for the entire weekend.
A No, that’s not what happened.
Q But yet you have no logical explanation for a hamburger receipt on Friday night.
MR CLEAVELAND: Objection, it’s argumentative, Judge.
MR. NEATON: And it’s been asked and answered.
MR. UPDIKE: I will withdraw it, Judge.
THE COURT: Sustained
BY MR. UPDIKE: (continuing)
Q So if I misunderstood you earlier, Mr. Soering, if the drugs were going to be delivered to this
Individual in Charlottesville on Sunday and you were concerned about this individual blackmailing Elizabeth thereafter with her parents?
A Right.
Q The activities in Washington on Friday and Saturday were not going to be of any help to you in disputing what would have had to have happened in Charlottesville on Sunday or thereafter, would it?
A That’s right what you’re saying, but that’s not what Elizabeth told me.
Q I’m asking you, you agreed to this alibi?
A That’s right, Elizabeth wanted to have an alibi for Saturday.
Q Then my question is, if you were concerned about protecting Elizabeth when she delivered these drugs to an individual in Charlottesville on Sunday, you as an intelligent individual would come back and say, “Elizabeth, tickets to movies in Washington on Saturday are not going to have to do anything to do with the delivery of drugs in Charlottesville on Sunday.”
MR. NEATON: Objection, asked and answered.
MR. UPDIKE: It has not been.
MR. NEATON: He just asked it and the question was answered about two or three question ago.
MR. UPDIKE: I haven’t, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. Now I allowed great latitude on other cross-examination of witnesses, the same rules apply. You cannot repeat, but you’re allowed a certain amount of latitude here.
A What Elizabeth told me was that she was afraid of Jim Farmer revealing to her parents that she was still using drugs and that she was in Washington, D.C. picking up the drugs and dealing drugs. And she said to me she needed an alibi, so that if Jim Farmer made such a specific accusation to her parents –
Q But this Jim Farmer, as you say, is in Charlottesville?
A Charlottesville, right. And she was picking up the drugs in Washington, D.C.
Q So tickets on Saturday in Washington ain’t going to help you any.
A That’s when she was picking up the drugs in Washington, D.C., on Saturday. And she wanted an alibi for picking up the drugs.
Q If you do that then you’re going to be concerned about an alibi on Sunday when this Jim Farmer is going to say that drugs were delivered to him, that’s the time that you’re going to want the alibi.
A No, she told me that she wanted an alibi for the time that she was picking up drugs in Washington, D.C., and that was on a Saturday.
Q So you had no alibi, then, for when the drugs were supposed to be delivered to this individual that you were concerned about?
A Well, he couldn’t say anything anyway.
Q Then if he couldn’t say anything anyway, there wasn’t any need for the alibi to begin with, now was there?
A Not about his own role. Jim Farmer couldn’t admit his own role supposedly.
Q That’s right. So you didn’t need an alibi from Jim Farmer. Jim Farmer, or this individual was not going to go to her parents and say Elizabeth brought me drugs. He wouldn’t do that, would he? He’d be admitting it –
A That’s correct, according to her he would be claiming that she was in Washington, D.C. on a particular weekend buying drugs. And she wanted an alibi for that.
Q So as concern for that, you were going to produce evidence that the two of you were in fact in Washington?
A Only to convince her parents.
Q How would that convince her parents? You have got movie tickets as to specific hours, but later, going around Washington, sightseeing, seeing the monuments, doing the different things, that’s not going to provide you with an alibi as to purchasing drugs in Washington, now is it?
A It would corroborate the story that she was with me on the weekend, and that’s what we wanted to do, according to her.
Q It would come down to you though, your credibility with her parents?
A Yes.
Q Then if that were all that were involved, all you had to do was to say to Elizabeth, look, Elizabeth, let’s have fun in Washington this weekend, you and I, let’s stay together, we won’t buy any drugs, I disapprove of drugs, I don’t want you using drugs, and if your parents later say that Jim Farmer claims that you did get drugs, I will tell them the truth, and that is you got no drugs in Washington, right?
A Yes.
Q You didn’t need all these tickets and all of these written documents for you to tell her parents that she didn’t get drugs, now did you?
A Elizabeth –
Q Did you?
A Elizabeth told me on the way –
Q Did you need them? I’m not asking you what Elizabeth told you, did you need them?
A I thought I did.
Q The reason that you wanted these tickets, Mr. Soering, isn’t the only logical explanation is not about drugs or anything like that, you wanted prove that you were in Washington when in fact you were coming down there to kill her parents.
A No.
Q You admit then, the more logical explanation is what you have just told these ladies and gentlemen concerning Jim Farmer, drugs to be delivered on Sunday, and activities in Washington concerning the purchase of it were on Saturday?
A That’s what happened
Q That, you’re saying, is more logical, and it makes sense? And you thought that that would protect you, then, concerning any allegation of drug use?
A Me?
Q Yes, and Elizabeth.
A The point was that –
Q Answer that question.
A Yes.
Q So if Elizabeth had come to Loose Chippings and she had done it, you all could have just said with these tickets, once you realized that the murders had happened, used these tickets and just simply said both of us were in Washington the entire time, neither one of us went to Loose Chippings.
A (Witness nods head in the affirmative.)
Q Right?
A That was not in our opinion, a believable story.
Q And the reason that was not a believable story was that it wouldn’t make sense that both of you were in Washington doing these things, or that one of you left and came to Loose Chippings without the other one knowing about it, do you follow?
A Sir, could you repeat that?
Q Do you see the point that I am getting at?
A No, sir.
Q You realize that this business about the movie tickets, the only way that that would work as an alibi for Loose Chippings for one of you, regardless of which one, regardless of whether it is you going to Loose Chippings or Elizabeth going to Loose Chippings, the only way that that would work as an alibi for the murders was that the one staying in Washington knew what was going on, isn’t that true?
A But we didn’t discuss Loose Chippings before she left.
Q And Elizabeth has said that. But if you admitted that, Mr. Soering, you would have to be admitting that you were providing an alibi for Elizabeth to do the killing if you were to say that you stayed in Washington and bought the tickets.
A Yes.
Q And kept two of them and did the room service?
A Right.
Q You would have to say that you were providing an alibi for Elizabeth to commit the murders at Loose Chippings, wouldn’t you?
A But I didn’t even know about that.
Q I’m asking you if you had said that.
A (Witness shakes head in the negative.)
Q And if you had said that, Mr. Soering, then you would be admitting guilt to the same thing that she had to admit guilt to, and that was an accessory before the fact, wouldn’t you?
A I’m sorry, you have lost me.
Q You’re smarter than I am.
A If I were to admit that I would provide an alibi for her if she were to kill, that would make me an accessory before the fact?
Q Right.
A Yes, I guess so, yes.
Q Yes, you guess so.
A (Witness nods head in the affirmative.)
Q And you don’t want that, because you want to beat this thing completely.
A It’s not what happened.