"Because in American criminal trials, potential witnesses in a case may not be present in the courtroom when other witnesses testify"
It's the same in German criminal trials for the same purpose.
I really appreciate your work, but I suppose it's like talking to a parking machine. Talented Dani and all the other friends of Jens will never ever understand, that they are believing a liar. But as we say in Germany: Die Hoffnung stirbt zuletzt....
Okay, now this is another piece of good and hard work you did and I think you are doing a great job. So knowing now there was an Error in the Wright Report I would like to ask: Does it change anything? What is different now? What does it proof?
A typical new blog entry by Andrew Hammel. Once again. Hammel and Wright are working together for years and producing content concerning the Haysom murders aka Soeringisguilty as charged!
As Wright had been only a witness of the period "the confessions in London" and a trial witness talking about the confessions and the investigations of the letters, he had been absent for the rest of the investigation. Although Gardner and Wright are friends now and he also could have access to all the public case stuff stored in the Bedford county courthouse, he was writing about nobody had showered in the murder night of the Haysom. By this point you can see, Terry's report is not very accurate according to all the facts and evidence which truthfully exist. E.g. a shiny luminol picture out of the bath tube section. But the mainpoint is, that he is following his own confirmation for years. What doesn't fit or has to fit will be made to fit. Which is not an ideal way to act as an investigator. What is his confirmation? Terry was blown away by all details in Soering's confessions. He is also blown away by the script of the timeline and of cause he is blown away by the expressive character of Haysom. This lead him to make a statement like the following one in his podcast or documentaries with his appearance (NDR). He shows the picture of the bloody shoe imprint between the Derek's chair and the dining room table while telling us that the shoe imprints prove what Soering had confessed. He stood behind Derek's seat slitting his throat. It doesn't need a forensic expert to know that this is impossible, cause if Derek would had been sittiing at the table while getting slashed from behind, the bloody shoe imprints would be positioned right under his chair. How silly is that? Everybody knows that the shoe imprints are too small for Soering according to their size. BUT Soering confessed he had entered the house in sneakers and came back (from his famous dumpster ride) reentering it in tennis socks. So everybody who is confirmed by the verdict has to swallow this. What Wright will do?.... he gives somehow one or more different versions of weak arguments trying to explain his confirmation or what was set to the truth by the verdict. So in this case the sneaker had not full contact on the floor for the fact that it is too small. Wow. Same with the fact of the absence of blood proven by luminol and forensic swab tests. Sure Soering is riding on the same argument, but Gardner himself made an interview admitting the absence of the blood in the car. So I find it quiet ridiculous to try to explain it with Coca Cola which means following Haysom's testimony or criticize Reid's work without knowing anything about it. It is just weak speculation or nonsense (Coca Cola).
Same with the alibi timeline. He will make us believe that Haysom stayed at the Hotel cause she had calls to Beth or CK and a four digit number will be her card number for picking up cash. There is zero proof by Wright. So it is weaker than speculation! Cause neither Beth nor CK had confirmed any call by Haysom. Did he refer to Haysom's interview talking about 400 Dollar cash by selling jewelry or her phone calls to the shop. NO! What an epic contradiction.
To make a short story not too long. If you are not open minded or well informed by all facts and evidence this case is wide open for narratives within its teams on both sides. Haysom and Soering. And we know that Wright is doing a favour by "investigating" for Haysom, against Soering and is supported by Hammel. You just have to read this once again dogmatic blog entry and fall for it! Or you can do a deep dive on the Wright report yourself. There are further very weak to wrong points!
PS: IDK what Hillers is writing about. I'm completely independent in that matter!
"Because in American criminal trials, potential witnesses in a case may not be present in the courtroom when other witnesses testify"
It's the same in German criminal trials for the same purpose.
I really appreciate your work, but I suppose it's like talking to a parking machine. Talented Dani and all the other friends of Jens will never ever understand, that they are believing a liar. But as we say in Germany: Die Hoffnung stirbt zuletzt....
Ich bin sehr gespannt, was da kommen wird, Andrew. Danke für dein update.
Sehr schön gemacht!
Ich sage nur: Nebelkerzen....
Ich wünsche Ihnen auch weiterhin viel Kraft, Herr Hammel....
Okay, now this is another piece of good and hard work you did and I think you are doing a great job. So knowing now there was an Error in the Wright Report I would like to ask: Does it change anything? What is different now? What does it proof?
doc crimscene: excellent analysis congratulations.
A typical new blog entry by Andrew Hammel. Once again. Hammel and Wright are working together for years and producing content concerning the Haysom murders aka Soeringisguilty as charged!
As Wright had been only a witness of the period "the confessions in London" and a trial witness talking about the confessions and the investigations of the letters, he had been absent for the rest of the investigation. Although Gardner and Wright are friends now and he also could have access to all the public case stuff stored in the Bedford county courthouse, he was writing about nobody had showered in the murder night of the Haysom. By this point you can see, Terry's report is not very accurate according to all the facts and evidence which truthfully exist. E.g. a shiny luminol picture out of the bath tube section. But the mainpoint is, that he is following his own confirmation for years. What doesn't fit or has to fit will be made to fit. Which is not an ideal way to act as an investigator. What is his confirmation? Terry was blown away by all details in Soering's confessions. He is also blown away by the script of the timeline and of cause he is blown away by the expressive character of Haysom. This lead him to make a statement like the following one in his podcast or documentaries with his appearance (NDR). He shows the picture of the bloody shoe imprint between the Derek's chair and the dining room table while telling us that the shoe imprints prove what Soering had confessed. He stood behind Derek's seat slitting his throat. It doesn't need a forensic expert to know that this is impossible, cause if Derek would had been sittiing at the table while getting slashed from behind, the bloody shoe imprints would be positioned right under his chair. How silly is that? Everybody knows that the shoe imprints are too small for Soering according to their size. BUT Soering confessed he had entered the house in sneakers and came back (from his famous dumpster ride) reentering it in tennis socks. So everybody who is confirmed by the verdict has to swallow this. What Wright will do?.... he gives somehow one or more different versions of weak arguments trying to explain his confirmation or what was set to the truth by the verdict. So in this case the sneaker had not full contact on the floor for the fact that it is too small. Wow. Same with the fact of the absence of blood proven by luminol and forensic swab tests. Sure Soering is riding on the same argument, but Gardner himself made an interview admitting the absence of the blood in the car. So I find it quiet ridiculous to try to explain it with Coca Cola which means following Haysom's testimony or criticize Reid's work without knowing anything about it. It is just weak speculation or nonsense (Coca Cola).
Same with the alibi timeline. He will make us believe that Haysom stayed at the Hotel cause she had calls to Beth or CK and a four digit number will be her card number for picking up cash. There is zero proof by Wright. So it is weaker than speculation! Cause neither Beth nor CK had confirmed any call by Haysom. Did he refer to Haysom's interview talking about 400 Dollar cash by selling jewelry or her phone calls to the shop. NO! What an epic contradiction.
To make a short story not too long. If you are not open minded or well informed by all facts and evidence this case is wide open for narratives within its teams on both sides. Haysom and Soering. And we know that Wright is doing a favour by "investigating" for Haysom, against Soering and is supported by Hammel. You just have to read this once again dogmatic blog entry and fall for it! Or you can do a deep dive on the Wright report yourself. There are further very weak to wrong points!
PS: IDK what Hillers is writing about. I'm completely independent in that matter!