Welcome to Team Söring, Katja Mitic!

Jens Söring manages to recruit another German journalist.

Ladies and gentlemen, let’s extend a warm welcome to the newest member of Team Söring: Die Welt journalist Katja Mitic!

Before I get to the analysis of her latest interview with Jens Söring, though, I would just like to thank all of the new subscribers and everyone who reached out with messages of support — and even some 100% voluntary paid subscriptions to this blog, which will remain free for the foreseeable future. I take a lot of sh*t for covering this case, to use the American expression, and it’s good to know people have my back. I don’t have time to thank everyone individually, because I’m too busy writing stuff for you all to read. But I appreciate all of your messages and support enormously!

Katja Mitic’s Puff Piece on Söring

But now, to Katja Mitic, who just published an interview with Jens Söring which, like much pre-2020 German coverage of the case could have been written by Söring himself. Mitic notes that Söring never tires of claiming his innocence, and blames his decision to confess on his “mistaken belief” that he had diplomatic immunity. Mitic does not mention that this claim, which always strained credulity, was refuted by Söring himself on October 6, 1985:

The "Diplomatic Immunity" deception exposed by...Jens Söring himself

Yet the main theme of this article is Söring’s assertion that he’s the target of of a gang of haters who stalk him (he says Germany needs better anti-stalking laws). His mistake after being released was to underestimate how much “hate” people could harbor. He doesn’t want to talk about his private life, because he’s had too many experiences with supposed friends who just want his money (“Where did an ex-con get all that money?” One might ask, but Mitic did not) or to take advantage of his name. He’s being “demonized” for merely wanting to tell his story. There are forums where people call on him and the people who invite him to speak to be denounced. (Denounced? As what? To whom?).

You can almost imagine him daubing a single manly tear from his eye.

Söring wasn’t allowed to speak at the University of Hamburg, he claims, because other participants didn’t want to be confronted with the “haters” that would attack them. Strange — that’s not what Hamburg said. They said they canceled the discussion because people threatened to disrupt it. (For which they provided no proof.) Now Söring sees himself as the victim of a denunciation campaign which “forces” him to go on YouTube and keep re-hashing all his innocence claims. (Söring has, of course, never needed an excuse to argue his innocence, as his four books on the subject attest.)

Finally, after this portrayal of Söring as the hapless, trusting victim of an orchestrated campaign, Mitic asks Söring a question which might prove slightly uncomfortable. Mitic mentions the 8-part podcast “The Söring System” (downloaded now well over 1 million times), and asks why Söring refused requests to be interviewed for it. It is worth noting that Mitic sums up the key themes of the podcast by merely referring to the producer’s website, saying that the podcast “claims” this and that happened. The article provides no evidence that Mitic has ever listened to the podcast.

If she has, then I invite her to contact me or post a comment, and I will post a correction.

If, as I suspect, she hasn’t, I find this is a serious lapse in judgment. Mitic’s article generally characterizes opposition to Söring’s innocence claims as the private obsession of “stalkers” and “haters”. However, she seems never to have listened to the thoroughly-researched, well-documented 8-part podcast with hours-long interviews with people who personally know Söring and guided his media campaign. She would have found out that the people who criticize Söring’s media campaign aren’t just a bunch of cranks — they have valid concerns and plenty of evidence on their side.

Nevertheless, despite not having listened the podcast (again, correct me if I’m wrong), she asks Söring why he refused to participate in it. It would have been a chance to directly confront his critics, after all. Söring says that he found the request for comment from the podcast too direct — they even asked whether he has ever vented “revenge fantasies”. You know, such as mowing down the entire staff (timestamp 29:08) of the Virginia Forensic Sciences Department, from the janitor to the manager, with an AK-47. Or that thing with Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (stay tuned). So he decided they were biased and he wouldn’t cooperate.

Since I gave an interview for the podcast, I can state that the producers contacted Söring and his supporters and were ready, willing, and able to given them plenty of time to state their case. Söring could probably have had an entire episode if he had wanted one — although he would have had to tolerate critical analysis of his claims.

At the end of the interview with Mitic, Söring walks off into an “icy gust” of wind. A solitary, misunderstood figure — dare we say … hero? — fighting a valiant one-man crusade against a merciless posse of stalkers and haters.

Söring’s Moribund Public-Relations Campaign gets an Unexpected Shot in the Arm

This interview is great news for Söring. For the past few years, Team Söring has been steadily shrinking. His American supporters haven’t said a word about his case. Some of them are surely asking themselves why Söring refuses new, reliable DNA testing using cutting-edge methods — something two of them sounded very excited about on the Small Town Big Crime podcast, since it might definitively prove his innocence (or guilt). For their part, many German journalists who once parroted Team Söring talking-points have gone deafeningly silent. Katrin Steinberger once published article after article about Jens Söring. Yet now he’s been back in Germany for almost three years now, and Steinberger — once probably his most loyal and active supporter in the German media — hasn’t said a word publicly about his case, as far as I can tell.

Söring is no longer invited to nationwide talk-shows. His “circle of friends” seems to have disbanded; his website appears to be run by people who try to make him look good because they’re paid to, not because they necessarily believe his claims. The amount of objective information and critical commentary available on the Internet now is huge. German media critics such as Übermedien and Deutschlandfunk (also “haters” and “trolls”?) have questioned the credulous, cheerleading approach many German journalists took to the case.

But now, just as his public-relations campaign seemed to be flatlining, two new members have joined: Judge Ralph Guise-Rübe, and Katja Mitic! We already know the judge is on Team Söring, because he stated opinions which were almost identical to those Söring frequently states, as I proved here.

But wait, am I being fair to Mitic? Is this interview really so pro-Söring? After all, she is careful not to directly endorse any of his claims. Nevertheless, I still find it unbalanced. The first indication is that it could have been written by Söring himself. As the old journalistic saying goes: “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations.” Jens Söring definitely wanted this interview printed. The article provides no indication of significant independent research, contains no uncomfortable questions, and adopts Söring’s preferred framing (misunderstood victim of “haters”).

But there’s more. The proof also lies in what the interview doesn’t contain, such as:

• Any proof that Jens Söring or any of the people who have invited him to speak have ever been threatened or harassed (in the sense of actual threats) in any way. Söring (and Mitic) suggest this, they insinuate it, but no proof. Söring has never provided any evidence that he has been followed, stalked, harassed, or doxxed. Not one of his speaking appearances has ever been disrupted. Nobody knows why the University of Hamburg discussion was canceled, since Söring and the university give different reasons for this.

  The only thing the University of Hamburg received, as far as anyone can tell, were politely-worded, cogently-argued emails objecting to Söring being invited to speak, especially without any objective context. That’s all.

• In order to portray Söring as the victim, Mitic leaves out everything Söring and his supporters have done to lash out at critics of his story. Team Söring have sent complaints to broadcasters who aired stories critical of his innocence claims, and to the employers of his critics. Söring also sued me unsuccessfully for the nominal value of €40,000, which you would think might be worth a mention. Of course, I provided Mitic with thorough documentation of this doomed lawsuit. But no, Mitic doesn’t mention any of these things, which show that Söring has caused more actual hassles for his critics than they have ever caused for him.

• Mitic mentions the report from Terry Wright, the decorated Scotland Yard detective who personally took Söring’s confessions, but doesn’t link to it or describe its contents. I provided her with a link to it (hardly necessary since it’s all over the Internet), but there’s no indication she read it (again, correct me if I’m wrong). Again, how can she evaluate the claims of Söring’s critics if she’s never familiarized herself with them? She’s now published two long interviews reflecting Söring’s point of view. Doesn’t she care about the other side of the story?

• I provided Mitic with plenty of background information which, as I’ve noted, she seems to have largely ignored. Here are other people whom Katja Mitic could have contacted for comment and for an alternate perspective, but apparently did not (I am happy to be corrected):

  • Annabel H.

  • Terry Wright.

  • Kenneth Beever.

  • The Honorable James Updike (prosecutor at Söring’s trial, now a respected judge).

  • Sheriff Ricky Gardner.

  • Any member of the Haysom family.

  • Any member of the Virginia Board of Parole.

  • Surviving family members of Jim F. (deceased 2014), whom Söring has accused of being a drug dealer, extortionist, and accomplice to murder.

  • Surviving family members of Judge William W. Sweeney (deceased 2017), whom Söring accused of lying in his own courtroom.

  • Richard Neaton whom Söring has accused of incompetence and of trying his case while mentally ill.

  • William Cleaveland, Söring’s other trial lawyer, who is a respected Virginia judge and politician.

    (By the way, are you beginning to get an idea why Söring is so controversial?)

  • Rachel Ryan and Courteney Stuart, journalists from Virginia who produced an extensive podcast on the case and arranged for cutting-edge DNA testing which Söring has refused.

• Here are the book-length analyses of the case which Katja Mitic has apparently never read:

  • The Terry Wright Report, hosted on the web server of the German newspaper FAZ.

  • The 600-page book “Nebelkerzen” on the Söring case published by retired senior German detective Siegfried Stang.

Mitic apparently has hours to spend interviewing Söring, but apparently no time to read any of the books critical of his claims. She portrays Jens Söring solely as a victim, without noting that Jens Söring and his lawyers and PR agents have worked behind the scenes to cause trouble for his critics.

Of course, Mitic will likely insist that the interview was impartial and fair, and that she asked Söring critical questions, and provided enough background and context. I hope this post has convinced you of the opposite. Mitic has now interviewed Söring in 2021 and 2022. If she interviews him again in 2023 interview, I hope she will do more independent research.