The Most Important Document in the Söring Case: The 30 December 1986 Interview

Read it here, unedited, with an introduction and annotations.

Introduction

Below you will find the entire English-language transcript of the interrogation of Jens Söring by Bernd König, then Public Prosecutor (or District Attorney, if you prefer) of Bonn, Germany. The interrogation was conducted at Chelmsford Prison in England on 30 December 1986. This document is, in my view, the most important piece of evidence in the Söring case. It was read to the jury, and was a key reason they convicted Söring.

Söring describes his background, his obsessive relationship with Elizabeth Haysom, his utter emotional dependency on this “goddess”, and the growing “hate” he felt for her parents, who he felt were trying to pry him and Elizabeth apart and destroy their relationship. He describes how he and Elizabeth forged a plan for her to remain at a hotel in Washington, D.C. while he drove to Lynchburg to “confront” the Haysoms. He then describes the murders, the crime-scene clean-up, and the aftermath.

In a crucial concluding paragraph, he describes the cathartic effect the murders had on him:

The way I see it, to say it cruelly, for many years certain problems have built-up inside me, which perhaps other people around their 18th have, teenagers, etc. All these problems appeared to come to a solution when I met Elisabeth, and I believed that the relationship with Elisabeth prepared me for this matter and certain tendencies within me which led to this act increased and that the matter on this evening ended as it ended, since I drank alcohol for the first time after a long period and for me relatively much and that because of the alcohol all these things erupted and the entire anger and all these problems were discharged.

This is not the most detailed of Söring’s confessions, but it is the most important, because Söring cannot argue he was misled or coerced. The interview was conducted in Söring’s own native language, in the presence of his own privately-retained defense lawyer, Prof. Dr. Andreas Frieser, who is still practicing law at the law firm of Redeker Sellner Dahs in Bonn, Germany. The public prosecutor is Bernd König, who is now retired and also head of the local chapter of Weisser Ring, an organization which provides support and advocacy for crime victims.

The tone is cordial throughout. Only one police officer is present, but he never speaks. His role was only to provide Söring with English legal cautions (which the German lawyers could not do) and provide security. Söring is clearly speaking of his own free will and describing emotions and events which he personally experienced. König has recently confirmed that he saw no signs of deception during this interview and believed what Söring was telling him had happened. Frieser, for his part, considers himself a supporter of Söring, but has declined to endorse Söring’s innocence.

I’m not aware of anyone who has read this full interview and not come away convinced Söring killed the Haysoms. This is not someone reciting a second-hand story fed to him by the “real” killer, but rather a troubled young man trying to come to grips with the fact that he has committed a horrible crime which will destroy his future. He repeatedly expresses disbelief that he could have actually done something like this, which happens all the time in murder confessions, of which I’ve read about 2,500.

What he does not express, you will notice, is any remorse.

The interview was originally conducted in German, then translated (not very well) into English. The language is stilted not only because it’s an interview, but because the translation is primitive. There are several passages which involve un-idiomatic use of the word “should”. This is an example of trying to convey German “indirect speech” into English. A sentence which reads: “According to witnesses, you should have gone to the party” means “The witnesses say you went to the party. Did you?”. “You should have returned home by that time” means: “We’ve heard that you had returned home by that time. Did you?”

This interview contains unflattering allegations against Derek and Nancy Haysom. I have decided to keep these not because they are true, but because they shed light on Jens Söring’s mental state. As I state in the disclaimer below, these allegations are almost all false, exaggerated, taken out of context, or some combination of the three. They should not be taken as reflecting anything about Derek or Nancy Haysom. There are references to the “report from Dr Hamilton” in this interview. This is the report by forensic psychiatrist Dr. John Hamilton, which Hamilton had prepared just three weeks beforehand, on 11 December 1986. You can read that full report here in English or German.

Below you find the entire interview transcript.

Interview of Jens Söring in the Presence of Defense Counsel Dr. Andreas Frieser and Public Prosecutor Bernd König, 30 December 1986, Chelmsford Prison, UK

Note:

The author of the report visited on 30-12-1986 with the consent of the competent English authorities the accused Jens Söring, who is detained in Chelmsford Prison in Essex/England and who is as from 31.12.1986 in custody pending extradition to America. In the presence of the German defence counsel of the accused Dr. Frieser, lawyer from Bonn and of an official from Scotland Yard, the head of the department was permitted to contact Söring. The English officer gave the defence counsel prior to this, an opportunity to have a discussion with the accused for about 20 minutes. The discussion with Soring in the presence of his defence counsel and the officer from Scotland Yard, was conducted in the German language and recorded on tape.

The following record presents a literal transcript - as far as only possible - of the tape put at the disposal by Scotland Yard of the discussion between the undersigned, Dr . Frieser, lawyer and the accused Jens Söring in Chelmsford Prison in Essex on 30-12-1986.

To start with the tape contains a caution about the rights given by Sergeant Gosling from Scotland Yard who was present at the discussion.

[* Note of translator about the abbreviations used: STA = PP (Public Prosecutor); B = A (Accused); V = DC (Defence Counsel)].¹

PP: As an accused you have the right to refuse to give evidence. You need not make any statement here. If you will give details, we will accept them.

A: Yes.

PP:  Alright, we will start then, as usual, with the personal data, because we have nothing yet about these in the files. When were you born, where were you born, what is the profession of your parents, do they live together, are they separated, your school education?

A: I was born on 1st August, 1966, in Bangkok, Thailand, my father is a German diplomat and at present Vice-Consul with the German Consulate in Detroit, America. My parents are married, I have one brother who is 18 years old. I visited school in Cyprus, Germany and U.S.A. I was last at the university in Virginia, U.S.A, where I obtained a grant in a competition. I studied there psychology to begin with and after the second year to study Chinese and economy. The mother is a housewife. The brother is at the university in Michigan.

PP: Have you a German final secondary school examination (Abitur) or any other?

A: In the meantime I achieved an equivalent. I have an American High School diploma and 2 years university.

PP. Have you had any relevant diseases not really children's diseases? Had your parents any diseases?

A: Perhaps it is relevant that I had an operation as a small child - I believe I was about 2 years old - for a brain tumor, which was not found. Whether this is relevant or not, I don't know.

Note: In this context Dr Frieser, lawyer, makes a brief statement which is accustically {sic] not understandable, but is probably in connection with a psychriatric [sic] expert opinion in which Soring gave in this context further details.

PP: Now further questions concerning alcohol or drugs, addictions to it or taken already occasionally?

A: This I can explain immediately, completely, because there is not much to tell. I have, I believe, smoked altogether 3 or 4 times, Marijuana.

PP: When was that?

A: One in the 9th, once in the 10th and once in the 11th class. That was when I was 14, 15 or 17 years old and one when I was 18. Each time not more than one cigarette. I did not like it. I tried it again regularly once a year to find out whether it gives me anything new. But it did not happen. I had therefore quarrels with my friends. Because of this I had problems in school. The same applies to alcohol. In America, when one goes to High School regularly at the weekend and at bigger parties one gets drunk. I did not like that. Each time I also did it once a year. From 15-onwards until university at the most twice in a year. As already said, I did not like it. I don't like to get drunk and I also don't like the taste of alcohol. I occasionally drink wine but never real alcohol. I am also not used to alcohol.

DC: With regard to the tolerance of alcohol?

A: That follows later.

DC: Perhaps you can already tell at this point what you told me?

A: Well, as said before, after having finished High School I took a few days holiday in Mexico and fell in love with a girl. Nothing happened there. When I then got to university, some time in the middle of November, I don't know it exactly anymore, I once got completely stoned, because of this girl. That was the only time that I got drunk to such an extent, that I laid down and woke up 3-4 hours later, being told by all my friends who lived in this apartment - that was in Autumn 1984 - that I attacked friends once or twice and tried to fight with them, but was drunk. I could not remember any of it, one has put me into bed again without anything happening. What I drank then was half a bottle of Calua liqueur mixed with half a bottle of Vodka. That was quite a lot and considerably high proof alcohol. That was the only time that I myself have attacked somebody physically, and that was under the influence of the alcohol that was therefore something very decisive.

PP: Is there still something to be said to the personal data? Do you still have questions Dr Frieser? Then I would suggest to get to the crux of the act, i.e. girl friend, when met? Parents, when met, etc. When did you get to know your girl friend Elisabeth Roxanne?

A: That was in Autumn 1984, on the first day I was in the university, that was the end of August. I met the mother the first week in September, maximum for 2 hours that I saw her. I therefore only talked very briefly with her. At this time I only knew Elisabeth for 1 or 2 days and have therefore not really been friends with her. I then saw the mother and the father still once again, that must have been in March when they visited Elisabeth in the university, and I then went with Elisabeth and the parents together to eat in a restaurant.

PP: That was therefore also in 1985?

A: That was 1985, yes.

PP: How old is your girlfriend actually [sic, the meaning is “currently”]?

A: She should be 22 now.

PP: The parents, what kind of people were they, you saw them at least once briefly? What did Elisabeth tell you about them?

A: Well, there is also a great discrepancy. That is what kind of people they were and what Elisabeth told me about them. I hardly know these people anyway. I know almost nothing about them. I know quite a lot what Elisabeth has told me. As far as I know and what I have been told by Dr Hamilton who also examined Elisabeth.

PP: Who is Dr. Hamilton.

A: Dr. Hamilton is a psychiatrist. He is the head of the medical department of Broadmoor Hospital. He said that Elisabeth is a pathological liar. With regard to this I do not know what is true of what she told me and what is not. I can only imagine that only very little of it is true and what is true is most likely still exaggerated. The mother was described to me as a woman who was extremely mean to the entire family and most of all to her husband, Cruel, how do you say this in German? I don’t know?

PP: Cruel.

A: Thank you.

PP: Listen, you must say, of course, if you have any difficulties to express yourself in German, you can feel free to say this in English.

Note: Söring's reply is at this point acoustically not understandable. He explained that he had no articulation difficulties. Only occasionally he is lacking a precise expression for an English word.

A: She was supposed to be a particularly cruel woman, who suffered from psychical illness, that she accused members of the family, mainly her husband to attempt to poison her, etc.

[Note from Andrew Hammel: It is clear from the translation that Söring is here using what is called indirect speech — that is, he is only recounting what he says Elizabeth told him. All accusations against Derek and Nancy Haysom in this interview are hearsay from a biased source, Elizabeth. There is no evidence backing up most of these accusations, and Elizabeth herself has admitted many are false or exaggerated. I have left these statements in only because they shed light on Söring’s state of mind, not because they are in any way reliable.]

Well, I should perhaps say to this that from the middle of October until beginning of December, Elisabeth and I were very good friends but not more. During this period she talked, of course, very much about herself and her parents. From December, 1984, until we were arrested here on April 30, 1986, we considered ourselves of being in love, or I believed myself to be in love, I possibly see this differently now. From the beginning of December until the beginning of April or the end of March when this happened, Elisabeth has told me a lot about her parents and especially many stories about cruel behaviour of her parents towards her, also hints about sexual cruelty on the part of the mother and with this for example she showed me a photo of herself supposedly taken by her mother and passed around in the circle of friends, a photo of her, on which she was naked and, as said before, I could tell further stories for hours.

PP: Well, what did she say about her father? Was he also so cruel or mean? Or was this another man who was quasi completely dominated by the mother?

A: It was exactly this. Originally he was a good person, but was then led astray by the mother to treat her cruelly. She also told me as an example that both parents were regularly beating her up when she was 20 years old, etc.

PP: How old are the parents, do you know that?

A: No, I don't know that. However, I was completely led by her. I was very much in love with her, or well, I considered myself being very much in love. I trusted her completely. There were various reasons at that time why I could easily become dependant on someone.

PP: Were you then dependant [sic] on Elisabeth, or had you the impression you were dependant?

A: At this time no. I considered it to be a perfect relationship, I considered her to be perfect. I took her for my goddess as I expressed it to the psychiatrist. There was no doubt whatsoever for me, what would happen if it came to a conflict, then it was always done as she wanted, it because her affection, her love was unbelievably important and important above everything.

PP: Has she then on some occasion said something that she could not get on with her parents and one had to do something?

A: She said from the beginning that she was at the limit of dropping out. She could not go on any more to live under the pressure of her parents. Something had to happen. I actually have always thought that she meant perhaps to marry me or something like this to get away from her parents.

PP: Did she still live at home with her parents?

A: Yes, the parents only lived 1 hour away from Charlesville [sic] where we visited the university. During term she lived in the university, at the weekend and during the holidays she always stayed with her parents.

PP: And there she felt herself rather suppressed? In every respect, also financially?

A: Exactly. In every respect, financially, she was never allowed to do what she wanted. Allegedly - I also don't know what is true, that is, however, what she told me - allegedly. She was 1 and a half years on the run from her parents travelling alone in Europe, hiking, etc. At this time she was very heavily dependant on drugs. She was that by the way partly too at the beginning of our relationship.

PP: How was it 1985?

A: Beginning of 1985 Heroin.

PP: For how long?

A: At about that time it stopped as far as I know. I only once saw a needle prick. Whether indeed it was Heroin I do not know. She has told me so much. During the Autumn term 1985 she had a brain tumor.² I have heard so many stories from her which I swallowed at that time without doubting, since I trusted her totally. What I shall believe now I do not know any more.

PP: What was the profession of her parents?

A: The father was retired. He was - as far as I know - a very wealthy business man. The mother was from the Astor-family. The matter of the money was also touched on by the American police. Money was perhaps a problem for her - not for me. I had received an extremely generous grant from the university, since I was believed to be an especially nice lad and also was an especially good student. I had no financial problems at all, I lived more or less like a king.

PP: And with her, when you were together who paid?

A: I, that had cost me a lot of money, but it was no problem at all for me. Everything could be arranged. I had plently [sic] of money from the university and simply spent it all for us, for her, for me that we could have fun.

Note: Dr. Frieser asked at that point a question concerning a trip to Europe by Elisabeth.

A. As she told me she was mistreated and beaten by her parents as a small child. She was sent to various schools also public schools in England. Afterwards she wanted to go to Cambridge to study there and to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts to become an actress. She was not allowed that. Then the parents wanted to take her to a hospital, to a clinic for nervous diseases. That was about 2 years before I have met her. At that point in time she ran away to Europe and travelled for about years in Europe as an addict. She felt herself persecuted by the parents and was eventually found by the parents through a colonel of the U.S. Army after she had injured herself in Berlin.

PP: We now come to the act itself. I just assume - you can correct me, I told you you need not say anything - that you simply murdered Derek and Nancy,* these are the names of the parents, so say it graphically. How did one actually get the idea to do something like this?

A: I am not quite sure, one hundred percent sure that I have murdered them and furthermore, it is also not important that I had the idea to kill them.

* Original German papers - show family name (HAYSOM)

PP: I have not said that. I said, how did one get the idea, one of you or the other, I don't know?

A: Afterwards it is quite clear to me, that at least on the point of Elisabeth it had to result in something like this, I don't know it exactly; I can hardly imagine anymore who this girl is, because it seems that everything what she has told me about herself are lies too. If you wish I can describe to you exactly what did happen at this weekend.

PP: Exactly. I am concerned about: both of you obviously left on the 29th hired a car - this I gathered from the statement of the American Police Officer Gardner which he made at the time before the Circuit Court of Bedford County, that is what I take as guidance. In this he mentioned everything, more I do not have at my disposal. It evolves around the said weekend, according to this, both of you rented a car and drove to Washington, took a hotel room, then went to the cinema, you are supposed to have driven back again. It would be best if you started telling from the 29th.

A: Well, we only rented the car because we wanted to have a weekend in Washington D.C., since we finally wanted to be once together privately. We both did not like it at the university in Virginia, we did not particularly like the people. The same problems as before because I did not like to get drunk, this being the main leisure activity of the students. I wanted to be together with Elisabeth, play music, go to the cinema and not in any case get permanently drunk. I don't like it and for this reason were always conflicts between me and my co-students. Furthermore we always were in double bedrooms in the dormitories in the university. It therefore was very difficult to be once together with Elisabeth in privacy. That is why we drove to Washington. There is much going on and most of all we could also book a room.

PP: Did you pay this again and also hired the car?

A: Yes, with the car I am not sure. But I assume that it was in my name. Anyhow one needs a credit card for this. Well, we rented the car and drove to Washington to the hotel. On the Friday when we left, Elisabeth had a phone call from her parents. I do not know what the parents discussed with her. I only know that she told me in fact in Washington that I really had to do something.

PP: If I may briefly interject: the car was perhaps rented by her.

A: May be, I don't know. I think it is not important. Something had to happen. The Parents did not think much of our being together.

PP: Did she give any more reasons for it?

A: I believe the problem of this weekend is - and basically also of the entire time thereafter, from December, 1984, particularly this weekend and this period I can only remember it imperfectly. I don't know exactly why this is so, I assume it has something to do that I realised in the meantime that my conduct in the last I5 years or li years is not exactly normal or is in fact normal. I can only say that I can not remember exactly what happened in Washington itself this weekend. I only still know that Elisabeth was of the firm opinion that I had to undertake something, I had to drive to Lynchburg under any circumstances and I said as usual yes, O.K., prima » I drive there. I then drove to Lynchburg with the intention in fact to talk to the parents. I believe to remember that she has said something, whether it was at that time
it definitely was mentioned at that time - that she would be taken away from the university of Virginia, because the parents did not like our relationship.

PP: Did she give any reason why the parents said this? Did you not suit them?

A: Exactly. I was not good enough, and in general one did not think much of me, because there were many wealthy people with much better chances than myself. Well, I went to Lynchburg with the intention to attempt to convince the parents that Elisabeth and I wanted to stay together and would stay together regardless what happened. Well, as already said, at that point in time, I thought of myself, as all the other people too, as of a particular nice lad, and I therefore was fairly convinced that I could achieve this.

PP: How did you in fact envisage this?

A: I always was an excellent speaker. I myself was not clear about why the parents should think, that just I should not have any good chances. At that point in time - it is difficult to explain - the grant I had obtained from the university of Virginia is a matter which results in much more than just money, one has to achieve special performances, and after that the chances would be very excellent too, since one is then supported by a promotion committee. I was therefore of the opinion that I was exactly the right one. And of this. I also wanted to convince the parents and since I have achieved to convince the heads of the competition I was fairly convinced that I also would convince the parents of it. With this intention I drove to Virginia, to Lynchburg.

PP: Why didn't she actually come along.

A: That is something. I believe she did not come along, but I am not quite sure.

PP: So you think she might have come along?

A: I don't know it. I don't know whether she followed perhaps in another car or whether she came along in the car. But I can not remember anymore. I think, there remain a few pictures of this evening here and there, let us say, which I can remember. In between there are quite enormous gaps, and partly there is something missing within the pictures itself. It is possible that Elisabeth came along. I can not commit myself. I don't believe it, but on the other hand, the police has told me that a second set of foot prints and actually female ones had been found in the blood in the house. When they were so fresh that they left traces of blood somebody must have been there most likely, or very soon after me or at the same time with me. I do not know that. I have no idea about it.

PP: You then drove to Lynchburg?

A: On the way to Lynchburg I bought myself two or three cans of beer and probably drunk them.

DC: Why?

A: I was nervous. Basically it was very untypical since normally I don’t drink to pluck up courage. I can not explain, this exactly, why I have done it. I drove a long time in the car, it was hot, I stopped and bought myself two or three cans of beer. I do not know anymore. how many. [sic] There were, however, not many. I then arrived late afternoon - no, it must have been already dark.

PP: Which day was this exactly?

A: I don't know anymore, it was Saturday evening. I then arrived in the house on Saturday. I was let in by Mr Haysom. The first thing - a drink was put into my hand. He was already drinking. That is, I believe, customary. It possibly was gin with something. Well, I do not know this exactly. I don't drink any hard drinks otherwise.

PP: Did you then drink the glass or did you only sip from it?

A: No, I drunk it all.

PP: Why against your habit?

A: Because I was nervous and the longer I stayed there the more nervous I became. As Elisabeth already said in Washington, there was rather strong pressure from both parents. I think the people were represented to me already as monsters and I had no reason to doubt it. I have, however, never doubted what Elisabeth told me. Well, I was nervous, there is no doubt at all. It was very important to me that these people should like me, that they would not interfere any further in the relationship with Elisabeth. That I drank. Then Mrs Haysom came down and drank pernod [sic] I believe. Shortly afterwards Mr and Mrs Haysom started quarelling [sic] with each other and to make the same poisonous remarks to each other as they had done it too when I was for lunch with them about one month ago, it may have been, with Elisabeth's mother.

PP: What was the quarrel about?

A: It started that Mrs Haysom was painting, she painted as a hobby, and she came down and there was already the first mean remark from Mr Haysom and so it continued and Elisabeth had told me that the parents carried on with their feuds in public and that the parents are quite particularly poisonous. That I had already noticed, as I mentioned, in the restaurant. Well, it continued in the same style from the beginning in the house. I don't know how it was with Mr Haysom. Mr Haysom was already drinking when I arrived. Perhaps it relaxed him somehow, I don’t know.

PP: How did it go on then, what did you talk about?

A: First we sat in the living room, there we did not talk about Elisabeth and myself but general things. And, as mentioned, the Haysom's were very busy attacking each other. I was then offered something to eat. We then went to the dining room.

PP: Have you eaten anything before?

A: No, I have not eaten anything since breakfast. For lunch I ate a Hamburger in Washington, but not much. The last big meal was breakfast. On the way there it is 3 and a half hours, by car and I had no time to eat something and I got served something warmed-up and we were sitting down together in the dining room. When we were sitting down I then started to talk to them that Elisabeth had told me that first of all I did not fit in.

PP: What did they say with regard to this?

A: Well they were very direct and opened the attack immediately what had shocked me somewhat because normally I would in fact expect that they would do it in a bit lower key and not quite so direct. What happened after that was a weird and very loud conversation, one yelled at each other. It was so, Mr Haysom had his own tactic which mainly depended on that I had no great future in comparison with other people whom Elisabeth knows, he meant with this background and material things and Mrs Haysom made it at the same time in a more personal way and at the same time they accused each other again and that what the other has said was not at all relevant and unimportant and did not make the slightest difference and that the only sensible thing was this and that. In real terms it was a three party competition between the two fighting about the method and at the same time in my direction.

PP: What did you say to this?

A: No, I have tried to say something but it was extremely difficult in this situation, especially in the beginning. The fact is, I can not express myself really well when I have the impression that the partner in the conversation is critical of me or has malicious feelings towards me. I don't know perhaps that originates from my relationship with my father, since I am rather fearful in such situations. I am with persons in authority, that I become nervous in such situations, when I have the feeling that they don't like me or are angry with me. Thus I was passive in the beginning and have mainly listened and the more I tried to say something the more they kept on talking to me getting louder with the result that I also got louder and in reality one yelled at each other.

PP: How long did this last about?

A: That is very difficult to say. I mean I describe this now rather from an instinctive perspective than an objective perspective. I can not remember exactly how it felt at the time, I believe the whole affair from the arrival until the respective attack passed in about 20 to 30 minutes - including eating. I believe the meal was not finished. Mr Haysom has somehow still eaten ice-cream. I had in the meantime 2 drinks in the living room and starting again in the dining room. They were also drinking. That was all within 20, 30 minutes I would estimate, but it is very very difficult to say. I mean, I can remember the whole affair only very, very poorly.

DC: Can you remember what Mrs Haysom objected to in your personality?

A: It started that I had nothing to say to Mr Haysom's critic [sic, “critique], that I, therefore, was weak, that I was not as talented as Elisabeth, and would stand in her way, as mentioned it started with this and was further built- up on it. I do not know anymore what the triggering point was, but something was said and I flew off the handle and wanted to run out of the house. I got up quite quickly. We were previously sitting at the table, Mr Haysom sat there, Mrs Haysom sat there and I sat here (the accused explained this with the help of the tape recorder in front of him). Mrs Haysom sat opposite me. The door was behind Mr Haysom. I had to go around behind Mr Haysom to get out. It was a large table and the other way was not free. I had only one instinct, I wanted out, I can not take such stress too well. I have never quarrelled with my father, but when my father sometimes scolded me as a child my reaction was always to run out. This is natural for me. I also did not get up very quickly and wanted to run out. Mr Haysom got up and pushed me against the wall, pushed me back.

PP: Could he then get up so quickly at all, if you started so suddenly?

A: All went in a hurry. How it was in detail I do not know. I only know when I wanted to pass him from behind he was standing, he had only to get up really while I had to take a few steps to get passed him. He stood and pushed me back, pushed me so in front of the shoulders. He is taller than I and sturdier than I and he was a rather strong man.

PP: Did he threaten you during this or only simply pushed you?

A: He yelled something. I don't know it exactly anymore. "Sit down young man" or something like it. Anyhow, I was ordered that I should sit down. I thus fell back and in fact against the rear wall of the house in the dining room, it was a stone wall. I then bumped my head against it. How strongly I don't know anymore. I also can not assess it. But the next thing I can remember is, that I stood behind Mr Haysom and then blood ran from the neck into the lap and that I was incredibly shocked. I can not really describe it, I simply could not grasp

PP: What could you not grasp?

A: That I stood there with a knife in the hand. He had blood running into his lap. I don’t know whether I have stabbed him in the neck, or cut down along the neck. I am of the opinion that this must have been something like it.

PP: Diagonal cut through the artery?

A: Yes, that was it. The artery is here in front. Or? I don't know, it came down in any case. It was such a feeling. I simply could not understand it. It was for me ..................

PP: From where had you the knife?

A: This is a question which I also have not answered to the American Officer. I also want it here to remain unanswered.

PP: I know for what reason you want it. You think of a premeditated crime. That is what it amounts to!

A: Yes.

PP: Certainly, there is with us too the question of intent and negligence. But that is something else as planned or not .... How did you get the knife?

A: Perhaps we can discuss this later. I want to get on with it first of all. Next I looked up and saw Mrs Haysom approaching me with a knife and screaming what [sic, “which”] was probably understandable. What happened after this I can only describe very roughly. Well, there was a fight and in fact rather at the beginning I took hold of Mrs Haysom's hand in which she held the knife and tried to push her between me and Mr Haysom. Somehow I tried to hold her with the knife. Mr Haysom in the meantime got up and it was very funny.

PP: He was standing all the time!

A: No, he was sitting. After I was away from the wall. What was in between I can not remember anymore. But I can remember distinctly that I stood behind him, well, he was sitting and I stood behind him and that I with the knife in the hand at the neck (Note: no verb) and that the blood ran into the lap. How I got there exactly I do not know. Well, that I had injured him at that time at the neck I have no doubt. Anyhow, after I had thus Mrs Haysom's hand with the knife.

PP: Were you then still standing behind Mr Haysom?

A: No, I came from behind him and she came then towards both of us and I grabbed her arm with the knife and Mr Haysom got up in the meantime, I still know exactly that he shouted, "My God, what are you doing?" Then was fighting. I don't know for how long I only know that I several times from Mr Haysom (Note: no verb), who naturally was defending himself, wanted to defend his wife. It was very curious. He still had incredible strength and appeared as if he was not wounded. He bashed me and boxed the head actually several times. At the first time my glasses flew of my face and I could hardly see any more. I have very weak eyes.

PP: What did you do, did you beat around you?

A: No, I held her arm firmly and tried to take the knife away from her, since Mr Haysom had no knife. He was only beating me. This was a smaller risk than Mrs Haysom who had her knife in her hand. I wanted to take it away from her under any circumstances and this was my greatest fear. Sometime I must have been injured by the knife. Somehow I got 2 holes, nor directly cuts, in the finger on the left hand. I had the impression that a small lump of flesh was cut out. That must have happened at the time that I tried to take the knife away. In the meantime there was quite a lot of blood on the floor, we therefore all 3 of us were permanently slipping and got up again. In any event I remember that, I think it is possible that the fight lasted less than 1 minute. In my memory it appear to be like half an hour, because I myself had absolutely no knowledge how I got into this situation and what I did there. I had somehow fear. It was, as said, a very difficult affair. I don't know how I shall describe it.

PP: Did you somehow injure the woman?

A: Yes, of course. Eventually and finally, I injured Mrs Haysom too at her neck. I say injured because there was all of a sudden no resistence [sic] on her part. I let go and ran to the door because, as said, there was no more resistence and the danger of the knife did not exist any more. I think I was in such a terror. I only wanted out and as soon as possible. Well, I had an insane fear. The last I remember - I was at the door to the living room. I saw her going to the kitchen with both hands at her neck. I don’t know any more. Mr Haysom was still screaming. He tried to get up, after probably having slipped on the blood. That is about the last what I can clearly remember. After that I left the house towards the car. I remembered later and in June that I drove afterwards to a rubbish container about 1 m away and that I then returned to the house. To be quite honest, I also can not be sure there anymore. I believe I drove to the rubbish container. Shortly after I had left the drive-way to the house, I hit a little dog which ran across the road. I don't know whether it is understandable, on the way to the rubbish container, I had tremendous fear and shock that I had injured the dog with the car. That is perhaps odd but anyway I arrived and noticed that I was bleeding profusely. As said, there were no cuts but a small lump cut out and that is why I was bleeding so much and I thought it was absolutely essential to drive back to find something to bandage the hand. Furthermore all lights were on in the house and I was afraid that somebody would notice it during the next day and then go there to examine whether there was light and also the door was open and all such things. Anyway I have thought it over that I had to return. In any event I think I can remember that. I drove back. I can tell you only that I have two vague memories of the bodies. I can not tell you for how long I was away. I estimated for the American Police that it was about 15 minutes. But, as said, I don't know. I am not certain. I only know that I drove very slowly to the rubbish container and that I thought the whole time about the dog. When I returned, I can only remember that I only saw the legs of Mr Haysom as he was lying on the floor and actually next to the passageway between living and dining room. And then I can still remember that I saw Mrs Haysom's upper part of the body, as said, also very vaguely in the kitchen, but it was like standing next to her, let us say, perhaps at the sink, I don't know.

PP: You went back once more, you said, and you saw the bodies lying there, one in the kitchen and one in the living room area.

A: Half in the dining and half in the living room. I can only remember that the legs of Mr Haysom were in the living room and the upper part of Mrs Haysom was in the kitchen.

PP: What did you do?

A: What happened then I can hardly still remember. I was once in the bathroom and got something to bandage my hand. But I can not remember now whether it was a bandage or a bandaid or simply a towel. I do remember that I took a type of shirt or a sweat shirt since my clothes was very bloodstained and I wanted to throw it away.

PP: You had not thrown it away yet?

A: No, I had not thrown it away yet.

PP: I thought you had already thrown it away on the way to the rubbish container and returned only wearing your vest and pants?

A: No, I had not yet thrown it away. I went once more to the container.

PP: Why did you drive to the container the first time, if you did not throw the clothes away?

A: Well, I drove there and intended to throw my clothes away there. When I arrived then and opened the door, I saw all the blood on my trousers and my hand and quasi woke up from the whole affair, because I could only think of the dog all the time. I noticed that I was bleeding too profusely to be able to return to Washington and that the light was on in the house and that I had to return once more. That is why I drove back once more. Well, I took a shirt or a sweatshirt. Honestly, the next thing I can remember was that I was sitting in the car and heard a certain song from the radio. I think I was in the house once more because I took my cutlery, my glass and the clothes. I thought on the glass and the plates were fingerprints and I also switched the light off in the house and closed the door behind me. The few things of which I am certain on the evening are the feeling to stand behind Mr Haysom, to see Mrs Haysom running towards me, that I was always slipping during the fight, that Mr Haysom was always boxing me and what I saw shortly before I ran out, that Mrs Haysom was in the kitchen and Mr Haysom was just getting up and then the 2 pictures, namely Mr Haysom's leg in the living room and Mrs Haysom's upper part of the body in the kitchen. These are basically the really sole, clear things I can remember.

PP: How did it then go on when you were on the way to Washington? What about Elisabeth?

A: Elisabeth was in Washington when I arrived, she was in the street.

PP: Did you call her in advance or did you meet her accidentally?

A: No, we intended to meet there in the street in front of the cinema.

PP: How did she know when you were returning?

PP: She was very shocked how I looked. She then said that I was extremely late, but this I can't remember exactly. I do remember where it was. It was in front of a cinema in Georgetown, that is the name of the part of the city. There are many cinemas, restaurants and bars. There is really something going on Saturday nights. On the way back I can only remember the song on the radio and that I had the tremendous urge to get back to Elisabeth. Between Elisabeth and myself it was always so that I left all my problems behind, when I was together with Elisabeth. With her it was my small safe world in which everything was perfect and in which I was loved completely and felt protected. I had, as I already said, this urge to come back to Elisabeth. We then went to the hotel.

PP: Did you go directly to the hotel or was it different?

A: We drove into the underground parking garage. I was in shock and fear. Elisabeth saw me in a practical way; and from this moment on took over the lead. We then drove down and parked the car. She went to the room and collected an overcoat. Anyhow she must have collected an overcoat. I can remember that she was wearing an overcoat when I was then standing in the lift, I can also remember the lift because there was a mirror in the lift or was it in the hall, I don’t know anymore. We then got up to our room and there she washed and bandaged me. Then I believe we drove back the next day to Virginia, to Charlesville, three, four days later, the bodies of the parents were found by a lady friend of the mother. I must add that the things I have told the police and the American officials in June, which Mrs Massie supposedly had said as everything else at that time in June to this October, I fully trusted Elisabeth (Note; German words missing). Elisabeth told me things about Mrs Massie and I must say, as I see the situation now that in your place I would not value anything. What I told the American Police about Mrs Massie is all from Elisabeth, which I simply adopted and believed the things from Elisabeth.

PP: One question in between. How did it happen that Mrs Massie could find the parents?

A: I was told or I read somewhere, I don't know it anymore, I suppose there was a bridge club in which she was a member and Mr Haysom had not phoned and did not appear, she therefore drove there. It was somehow like this, I believe.

PP: If I tell you now that Mrs Massie stated that Elisabeth phoned her on April 3 and told her she could not reach the parents, the victims, she should go and check. Is this new to you?

Q: Elisabeth should have [i.e., it is alleged that] phoned Mrs Massie? I am not surprised about anything anymore.

A: Mrs Massie stated that. It is then not known to you that Elisabeth has phoned Mrs Massie?

PP: This is then your whole presentation as you have the affair in your memory or is there anything to be added before we, Mr Frieser and I, will ask you a few questions.

A: Well, you mean now about this evening, I don't think so. I can only say that I personally have not much confidence in my own memory. I think we can discuss the matter about the knife at a later stage. I had no intent to kill these people and it was an absolute horror experience and I can remember very little and what I can remember of this weekend is all very vague.

PP: Let us start with this right away. You said you had no intention to kill the parents. Until now you have not told me that you did kill them. Do you remember having killed them?

A: I can remember that I have caused both of them neck wounds. I did cause them neck wounds, I believe to remember having seen them on the floor in the house after I was away for perhaps one-quarter of an hours [sic]. Well, I must say that I personally assume that at least the wounds I caused them had something to do with their death. The reason why I can't say anything and not want to say that I killed them is that after all a second set of foot prints which supposedly were in the house and which are absolutely inexplicable for me.

PP: Well I can say that there was nothing in the files I have read about a second set of traces. It is only said of an imprint of a tennis shoe and then the imprint of a sock. You youself [sic] said to the American Officer that you returned in socks the the second time.

A: Yes, that is right.

PP: Perhaps you confuse this with the two imprints.

A: No, when I left the house I was not wearing shoes, I had taken them off the first time when I got into car. No, the matter with the two foot prints was in all newspapers from the beginning and I also think that during the week we then were in Lynchburg and the police had always informed the brothers and the family whether they knew what they had learned in the meantime etc, also what I was told in the months after that again and again either they talked about it in my presence or I heard it from Elisabeth that one set of male and one set of female footprints was found there and there was always a theory that the woman was the wounded one and the man had carried her out.

PP: Well to revert, you said in the beginning you did not know whether Elisabeth has accompanied you. Now, at the end you said that you have met her in Washington. I think, in theory, it would have been possible that she also hired a car, drove there and back and was there again before you. Is that what you base your assumption on ?

A: As already said, I simply do not know it. I know that I collected her in front of the cinema. I don't want to commit myself.

PP: Did Elisabeth know something of the act when she met you in Washington? Something she could have only known if she had been there herself?

A: No, not in any event that I can remember. But, as already said, there too is it so. I can remember only her shocked face when she got into the car and then the matter in the hall and the parking garage, I simply don’t know it. I wish I could say more to this.

PP: If we consider this as the conclusion let us go back once more. I suggest to you what the American Police Officer Gardner has declared in his sworn statement before the District Court in Bedford at the time. He then said: you should have stated to him you had hired a car together. With the car you drove to Washington D.C. There you booked into a hotel. Well, there I face the first question. Either before or at the time of hiring the car you both had already talked about killing the parents. What do you say to this?

A: There was no discussion at this weekend that the parents should be killed this weekend.

PP: Was it then mentioned at another time that the parents should be killed?

A: That is a question which I should really discuss with you (Dr. Frieser). You know what I told Dr Hamilton.

DC: It is a question how far one dives into the problem [of] Elisabeth. I think we should dive into this story if we put the emphasise - what we will certainly still do - on the role of Elisabeth, or rather of what she has told you. One must then come to the discussions which were led with regard to her parents and the killing of her parents.

A: Well, I believe that first two months in 1985, Elisabeth and I spent much time with each other.

PP: Was this actually the first woman for you?

A: Yes, absolutely.

PP: You need not go closer into it. It shall only be established why you were so attached to this woman.

DC: This is a story which we should perhaps not discuss here in all details, but should nonetheless mention.

A: Well, I summarize briefly how this took place in my brain. I actually was always an outsider. There was then the first time when I was still in Atlanta at the high school it was always so that (Note: no verb) especially towards the 12th class. The entire time in Atlanta I went out with a girl once. I went to the senior ball, the last dance of the year, against my will with a girl whom I did not like at all, it was rather a disaster, thank God, I hardly saw the girl during the evening. As said, the only girl with whom I had once a relationship was this girl whom I met during the 3 weeks summer holidays 1984 in Mexico. But with her also it was a highly problematical relationship which came to nothing. We kissed perhaps 3 or 4 times. With Elisabeth was the first time at all and for me it was something of very special importance since until then I had no contact in general with co-students. At the high school equally I have not had it, especially not in the last year. That was the first person, in any case it appeared to me like that, who loved me and who gave me the feeling to be loved.

PP: You were then at that time very intimate and close friends, have you at any time discussed to kill the parents or to get rid of them?

A: During the first 2 months or the following time Elisabeth and I spent every free minute from early morning until very late in the evening together. I hardly slept during the second term since we spent the whole time together, it was then daily, I would even say still more when we talked about her past; I was told stories about what her parents had done to her. Well, that she was raped in Switzerland and the parents neglected her, that even a social worker in Canada was going to take her away from home because she had accused the parents of neglect. Such stories came out more and more. I believe it is quite right that I hated the parents more and more, because I loved Elisabeth so incredibly. She was my everything. I can only very poorly describe what feeling I had for her. I would say that in the last month before this happened, there were talks, not very detailed, which arose from the feeling of hate. Man, we must really put them into a car and let them roll down hill. The matter with these conversations was that I, in any event, did not take them seriously and it is for this, that I also said that I did not drive to Lynchburg with the intent to kill these people. To this I should perhaps still add something, that I also was in the previous years politically rather left, always very much against war, against violent acts etc, and also wrote for a newspaper. I was the editor of a student newspaper. I always was critical of violence in TV and cinema. Violence was strange to my character, but I have hated these people also very much and these feelings of hate I have expressed in conversations through fantasy games, as for example one should put them into a car and push them down a hill. Something with a remote controlled bomb, burn down the house. During the last days I still remembered another thing. Something with a bath tub and piranhas. I remember that Elisabeth in fact called a pet shop in Washington and enquired about the fish. This was a reaction for me. I loved this girl. I did believe her everything [i.e., everything she told me]. I believed that the parents mistreated her terribly, abused and attacked her, and it was a way of releasing the emotions in fantasy games. It was nothing seriously meant. In hindsight I must say that I believe that on her part it could have been meant seriously. I don’t know that. I think I have not the slightest idea who this person really is. It is a fact that I was considered at that point to be intelligent. I knew at this time, beginning 1985, of 3 shotguns, 2 revolvers and one automatic pistol which I could have obtained within 2-3 days. In 2 cases the owner of the gun would neither notice it or could tell the police, because 2 of the guns were not registered. I knew a boy who lived in my apartment and had a revolver at home and who even told me where it was. From a neighbour in Atlanta, for whom I looked after his cat, I knew that he had a powerful revolver and I also knew where it was. As already said, if I wanted to kill somebody or intended to kill, I then would have done it in any case with a shot gun. That is the only logical thing. That is the only way how one would have wanted to kill a person if one had done it and because one would not be caught this way. I think piranha fish and remote controlled bombs are simply not the right thing. I or anyone could buy guns at any time in America and this would have been my choice if I wanted to kill someone.

PP: Once more going back, you said that you, before or at the car hire, have not concretely talked about the killing of the parents.

A: No, we have not.

PP: And accordingly you have not made a concrete murder plot?

A: No, we have not.

PP: Well, an American Officer had this recorded like this.

A: As said, this is not right. The American Officer has also said a sentence at the end. That I have said that I have killed the people, but I have not said that to the American Police, in any case not in this form.

PP: I further suggest to you - in an abbreviated fashion - as I have noted from the statement. According to this you shall have said, we have discussed that, whereupon I drove to Lynchburg as planned. The girl friend went to the movies in Washington, she should watch several films to provide me with an alibi.

A: It was not planned, it was not driven to Lynchburg according to plan to kill these people. The whole matter that I should drive to Lynchburg at this weekend came only up in Washington. We only wanted to drive to Washington, as said, for fun.

A: Then what the officer said is not so? You perhaps have not then said this at the time like this?

PP: No, I did not drive to Lynchburg planning to kill these people.

A: You are supposed having said that you felt during the trip to Lynchburg hatred and anger for the later victims, the parents of your girlfriend, because they exercised pressure on your girlfriend to end the relationship. Is that so?

PP: That is right without doubt. But this concerns a general feeling which was building up in me anyway over months. I say this only very reluctantly, but I believe, I have allowed Elisabeth to built it up in me. I have mixed feelings for Elisabeth. I have trusted the girl totally over years and it is very painful for me to admit that I was perhaps manipulated.

PP: I continue. The officer further stated you are supposed to have said, what you also said now previously you were received by the father, the mother was probably preparing a meal. It did also not come out exactly from this statement. She probably came later down from upstairs. When you were sitting at the dining table, the relationship with Elisabeth was discussed and that the parents would do anything to terminate this relationship.

A: They have said that they would get me expelled from the university. As Elisabeth had explained the position of her parents, they could have done that and then my whole future would have been destroyed. I have worked very much for this grant. That was my entire future. My parents are not wealthy, but this had nothing to do with it, it all circled around Elisabeth. I would have sacrificed everything.

PP: In this context an anger build up in you - it was the woman you loved, with whom you wanted to spend your life, whom you wanted to marry.

A: Naturally.

PP: Because they have built up this position towards you, you were supposed to have got up, pulled a knife and slit Derek’s neck from top to bottom across severing both arteries and veins.

A: I certainly have not said that it in this way to him. Not like this. Actually I said it word for word, I know this rather accurately as I just said it here, namely that I got up and wanted to run out, was pushed back, hit the wall with my head and the next thing I can remember is that I was standing behind Mr Haysom.

PP: Well, we can establish that you did not get up with the intention to kill or to injure but to escape to get away from it all.

A: Of course. This is a natural reaction for me since a long time. I have no experience with fights. The last fight I once had was in the 9th class and previously in the 7th class, I was 14 or 12 years old. I never fought. It is a natural reaction for me to run away not to stab somebody with a knife, this is not natural for me.

PP: Well, in this context we must, of course, discuss the question of the knife. The American Officer talked about this Swiss army knife, which you were supposed to have possessed. I don't want to discuss this any closer, only where did the knife come from? You yourself say you have both of them later, or him anyway injured with the knife and injured her too. Where did the knife come from?

A: Well, one thing I will say to this. The Swiss army knife, the matter which always comes up. Under guarantee it was not the Swiss army knife. The matter is simply this, I don't know with which knife I injured Mr Haysom. I am positive that I have injured Mrs Haysom with the knife she had. I don't know with which knife I injured Mr Haysom. I personally have my theory but I forgot to discuss it with you (in this context the accused refers to his defence counsel).

DC: I don't know whether this is so important now. Does this matter at all? If it is a theory - we discussed before, he should not tell you things which he later put together but only what he actually knows.

PP: You don't know how you got the knife?

A: No, I have not said that. What I want to say is, that I do not know with which knife I injured Mr Haysom.

PP: Can one establish that you anyhow had some kind of knife with you? Considering that it is quite customary to carry guns in the U.S.A., I assume, you had the knife with you no matter for which purpose ever.

A: Can’t we leave that?

PP: I don't know, I leave that at your discretion.

DC: If you don't want to say anything to this, we leave it then. We will establish that he does not know with which knife he injured Mr Haysom?

A: I have in fact injured him with a knife.

PP: And her, you probably injured with the knife she had in her hand, in any case that's what you think.

A: I believe that this would be logical that I injured her with the knife she had in her hand. Then this was the knife against which I wished to defend myself.

PP: Once more briefly back to it. You are sitting there and want to escape. We must try to reconstruct this a bit. Thus Mr Haysom gets up, pushes you towards the wall and says, "sit down boy". Now I don't understand how it got to the act with the knife. Where ever did the knife come from.

A: I think, I am now 7 or 8 months here in prison. I basically started to think about it only in the last few months, because until now I tried to forget the affair. I have discussed this with various people for example also with the psychriatrist, I think, if I had remembered more, I would have been able to tell this in the meantime. I only know that I came away from the wall with a tremendous rage.

DC: Did you feel humiliated by Mr Haysom or was it more your fury that you did not get any further? Was it a fury having been treated like a small child, or a fury for not being up to the situation anymore?

A: In reality it is both. It is a fact that it was the first time for years and years somebody attacked me physically. Well, the end of November, when I got so drunk because of the girl after the summer holidays, I could not remember at all, this I was only told by people, but there are probably witnesses for it that I attacked somebody. But I could not remember it at all. The last time I can remember having pushed or beaten or something like it happened when I was 14 years old. This was a combination of being yelled at and pushed and then, as already said, that I banged my head against the wall- I don't know, with my psychriatrist I dwelled a long time upon this point in time, about my relationship to my father, perhaps I need not do it here. A collective rage arose which resulted from the situation which was already months if not years old. That all erupted now.

PP: Once more back. It is all well and good, how you got the knife you do not know, whether you have put it into your pocket or whether you took it from the table.

A: I do not know any more with which knife I had wounded him.

PP: But why do you stab him and attempt to slash his artery at the neck? Did this arise out of the rage?

A: I can not remember that I tried doing it. I do remember that I stood behind him having this total shock and terror when I saw the blood in his lap. There was no attempt.

PP: Alright, let us get directly to the act.

A: Well, suddenly I stood there, the man was bleeding and I had a knife in the hand.

PP: Well, you yourself do not know that you have cut him, but it is simply the logical consequence of having a knife in your hand and seeing him bleeding?

A: As already said, I came from the wall with a horrific rage in me and the next thing I remember is that I stood behind him and the total shock and terror that this blood was there in his lap.

PP: Then, in this moment Nancy came with the knife towards you - these are all fragments.

A: Yes.

PP: And with her it then came to a fight?

A: I tried to take the knife away from her and cling to her arm where the knife was.

PP: Now this American Officer states you should have put your arm over her right shoulder and then cut her throat from the side.

A: Yes, I must have put my arm over her right shoulder since we were both standing and I am right handed. But in between there was what represents for me a very long drawn out fighting scene, how long it actually lasted I do not know. But it was a very intensive fight. It was mainly that I wanted to take the knife from her, because Mr Haysom was beating me at the same time and one can only defend oneself badly against beating if one tries to take a knife away at the same time from someone, if one has an insane fear. That I injured Mrs Haysom after this at her neck is quite right.

DC: How was the chronological correlation? She approached you with the knife and you felt being attacked?

A: Certainly , yes.

DC: As reaction to the attack immediately the injury on the neck, or was then wrestling in between?

A: Yes, as said, there was a fight which appeared to me lasting like half an hour, but probably was only 1 or 2 minutes during which she tried - partly with success - to injure me and at the same time Mr and Mrs Haysom were beating me as much as possible and that went on so long between the three of us until I injured her at the neck.

PP: Can you still say how this actually happened or don't you know?

A: I only know that I injured her at the neck.

PP : Then I continue with the statement of the American Officer. After this you are supposed to have said, that after the act you took your clothes off and later threw them away at the rubbish dump. Because the light was on in the house you returned to the scene of the act, you were injured on your index finger and the little finger and walked into the house in socks. Basically it is as you told me up to now. Only that you said previously that the changing of the clothes happened on the second journey to the rubbish dump and not the first time.

A. The American Officer must have misunderstood this. It would not be logical that I travelled a second time to the rubbish dump.

PP: One can of course say, logically alright. As you told it before, you threw the knife away on the first occasion and you returned for the second time to throw the clothes away.

A: I did not take a knife with me the first time. Everything I threw away I threw away the second time.

PP: The glass and the plate and such things, that one would not know that a third person had attended the supper?

A. No, because of the fingerprints.

PP: Then you ought to have smeared blood around to remove traces.

A: Yes. I told you that. To the smearing I can only say (no end of sentence) I can not say now that I do remember it now, but I presume that I remembered that at least in June that I probably did it.

PP: Now, perhaps the contradiction too is cleared up with the two trips because the officer stated later in his interview "he afterwards drove again to the rubbish dump where he threw knife and clothes away except for socks, underwear and pullover". Therefore it seems that already then one talked about 2 trips. Then you bandaged the injured hand in the bathroom, as you also explained it today. Thereafter - the officer then states, you met the girlfriend in Washington in front of a cinema. Then you are supposed to have told her in the car that you have murdered her parents.

A: Yes.

PP: The girlfriend then fetched clothes from the hotel room, that you were able to go upstairs. You then went together into the hotel from where you departed again on the next day, 31.3.

A: Yes.

PP: Who actually took the car back afterwards? You two together? Or only she?

A: No idea.

PP: Have you made other trips in the car or were the quasi [sic] the trips which you have explained?

A: Yes, only these trips. I have told the officer everything and I have to assume that it was like this.

PP: That corresponds with the established distance in kilometres which you paid afterwards. This is actually what I wanted to ask in this moment. Dr. Frieser have you any more questions?

DC: Only one question basically, namely had you the impression that you were drunk when this happened because of the beer and the gins?

A: Yes, that is a difficult thing. Since I never drank and since, with the exception of the one time, I never got really drunk, I mean completely drunk, it is therefore very difficult for me to say whether I got drunk on this occasion. I drank in fact 3 tins of beer and I assume about 3 of these drinks, hard drinks, gin and tonic I believe it was. I had nothing or very little for lunch. I have to say that I believe that I must have been drunk. Because, as already said, I never drank much. I also hardly drank between the time in November with the Calua and the journey to Lynchburg, since the smell of alcohol made me feel sick in this period. I don't know whether this is normal. But after I got so completely stoned I could not smell alcohol any more. I felt really sick of it. I have to assume that I was drunk or was at least strongly intoxicated, most of all since this act was in fact completely untypical in any case from my view. I draw the conclusion from this that I was surely strongly intoxicated.

DC: Is this then a subjective explanation for the act?

A: The way I see it, to say it cruelly, for many years certain problems have built-up inside me, which perhaps other people around their 18th have, teenagers, etc. All these problems appeared to come to a solution when I met Elisabeth, and I believed that the relationship with Elisabeth prepared me for this matter and certain tendencies within me which led to this act increased and that the matter on this evening ended as it ended, since I drank alcohol for the first time after a long period and for me relatively much and that because of the alcohol all these things erupted and the entire anger and all these problems were discharged.

PP: A further question. From the autopsy reports available here it emerges for example that Derek has received a stab into the heart.

A: Yes, I was asked about this too. I can not remember all these things. I believe very many stab wounds were established, I can not remember stab wounds.

PP: Then the neck wounds only?

A: Yes, only the neck wounds.

PP: You can not remember all the stab wounds which are listed there, abdomen, stomach, the heart area?

A: I can not remember these. I believe, I can not say any more to it at this point in time. I still have further theories of my own, but I can not remember it. I have explained today exactly what I can remember.

PP: Except for the knife:

A: Yes, except for the knife, but also there (unfinished sentence).

DC: Is this a theory?

A: Exactly. That is a theory. I can not remember with which knife I have injured them. With which knife I have injured them, I believe anyway that this was their knife.

PP: I think we can conclude the interview with this if you have no more questions Dr Frieser. Scotland Yard will produce a copy of this tape which we can take to Germany where it will be transcribed for our files. I conclude the interview if you don't wish to say anything.

A: The only thing I wish to add is that from the psychological side my thoughts about what I mean are set out most detailed in the report of Dr Hamilton.

PP: Another question in this context. Are you prepared to make the report from Dr Hamilton available to the Public Prosecution Services?

A: This is for Dr Frieser to decide.

DC: I believe this will be done.

A: I am absolutely sure that this report will also answer your questions with regard to the knife.

1. What the translator is saying here is that in the original German document, the abbreviations are STA for Staatsanwalt; i.e., public prosecutor, “PP”; A=Angeklagte/accused, which is translated as “A”; and V for Verteidiger, which is translated as defense counsel, “DC”.

2. According to Elizabeth, she invented the story about a brain tumor to distract Söring from his plan to kill Ricky Gardner. After Söring’s October 6, 1985 interview with Gardner and Chuck Reid, Söring was frightened that the police suspected him and that he might soon be arrested. Elizabeth says Söring had formed a vague plan to kill Ricky Gardner to derail the investigation.