Don't get confused by all the smokescreens put up by Söring. The decisive consideration is how somebody would behave who is actually not guilty and was not present at the crime scene. As a matter of common sense, such person would do the utmost possible to enforce a new DNA test and I am sure he would find the right arguments to file a petition without lying about facts. So if a person does exactly the opposite, i.e. looks for arguments not to apply for a new DNA test, what is the only logical conclusion?
Falsch, ein Mensch mit gesundem Menschenverstand würde ALLES tun, um nach 33 Jahren nie wieder in den Konflikt mit der US Justiz zu kommen. Und dementsprechend keinen Meineid begehen.
Nochmal, damit es auch der letzte versteht: In dem Antrag muss man eine Argumentation führen, warum bestimmte Beweismittel für den Test geeignet sind. Dazu muss man Fakten präsentieren und diese mit einer Einschätzung verbinden. Für beides kann man Ausführungen von Experten beifügen, wie es STBC auch gemacht haben. Die Fakten müssen natürlich der Wahrheit entsprechen, ansonsten besteht das Risiko, dass man wegen einer falschen eidlichen Erklärung belangt wird. Die Einschätzung muss nachvollziehbar sein, sonst besteht das Risiko, dass das Gericht den Antrag ablehnt. Eine falsche Einschätzung erfüllt aber nicht den Tatbestand des Meineids. Der Antragsteller kann die Lage auch anders einschätzen als Nance. Solange Söring also nicht lügt (i.e. täuscht über *Tatsachen*), besteht das einzige Risiko darin, dass der Antrag abgelehnt wird (natürlich zusätzlich zu dem Risiko, dass das Ergebnis ihm nicht passt).
Und du checkst aber schon, dass Söring seit Jahrzehnten in der Öffentlichkeit steht und demnach nicht einfach irgendwas vermuten kann? Weil durch Filme etc bewiesen werden kann, dass er definitiv weiß, worum es geht?!
Vor allem würde er den Lügendetektortest nicht mehr fürchten. Der Knaststress, der ihn bislang vor der Freilassung so nervös machte, ist ja jetzt schon länger vorbei!!
Das mit der Meldepflicht stimmt also zu hundert Prozent, ohne jeden Zweifel, weil die verliebte Annabel das sagt, ja? Die USA könnte sehr wohl einen Auslieferungsantrag stellen. Für wen haltet ihr euch eigentlich, zu fordern, dass Söring eine Straftat begeht, nur damit ihr eure Bockigkeit befriedigt bekommt?
"Die USA könnte sehr wohl einen Auslieferungsantrag stellen".
Können sie gerne tun, hätte aber keinerlei Konsequenz, denn in Art. 16 GG heißt es bekanntlich: "Kein Deutscher darf an das Ausland ausgeliefert werden".
Irgendwann ist Verhalten logisch. Das Phänomen Söring ist doch eh immer wieder entlastende Erklärungen für sein Verhalten zu suchen. Wenn man nicht 1:1 seine übernimmt, dann philosophiert man eigene dazu.
Viele sind auch berechtigt. Da belastende oft auf demselben Weg entstanden sind. Aber wir befinden uns an einem Punkt des endgültigen Kippmoments. Söring kann diese Leier mit den verweigerten 1.2-1.4 Mio einfach auf dem Beweisstand nicht mehr bringen. Er macht sich nur lächerlich!
Well, as I am rather convinced that both had been at the scene I have to add something substancial and correct you. The first one who had confirmed the possibility and being interested in the retesting had been Chip Harding and this was before the long break of STBC. If this had been happened based on a permission given to Harding by Soering is not known. But generally Soering's Supporter are briefed and he can get very angry if someone doesn't stick to. The reason was that based also on the investigations of STBC it came up that DNA Retesting could be senseful, while Wes Nance didn't found it that conclusive. So Harding brought the idea up that there are 200 items of evidence which are stored to the case file possible to be retested
This is a good article which backs up the Gist contradiction around 1989 to 2017. I would like to know if Nance or STBC shoot back against Soering, cause he gives no proof demanding Retesting in 2017.
You're right, claiming STBC to follow Team Haysom or Updike is ridiculous. They said, maybe they are both lying. That is the right point to start with. What I do not understand is that they are claiming that all the suspects named by Soering are exonerated. Well that is right or wrong but technically not reliable.
@FS007/FS008
It is completely wrong to investigate on the case just to proof Soerings guilt, because Haysom's alibi is anything else than waterproof!! In fact she has none! Wright is just pointing to his favourite theory which Elizabeth had destroyed logically in her own interview!
A lot of evidence points in that direction. Technically, logically forensically, logistically and based on their own admissions after they had been convicted and before. BTW from Alpha to Omega there are a lot of persons believing this. Heller, Lemley, Englade, STBC they all had doubts about the right murder version.
So if you are one of the guys claiming Soering must did the atrocities alone, cause he is such a violent, brutal, bad guy it is not a proof, instead of what you like to be the outcome. So if they did it together, and she still claims that Soering did it alone, he put it just the other way round. That is what simply had happened from 87 til 90. But she is defining it also more clearly in her own words. She wanted him to be punished in the SAME way - her statement at her trial 87. But she had an early parole, That was her deal. And in 2016 she said to Heller, that he has exactly the same guilt as herself. And not to forget that she is refering to the bloody sneaker imprints as made by her mother as Nancy had smaller shoesize as herself! Well Soering has a bigger shoesize than Haysom 🤦
@FS007/008
All are weak points.
1. A smart killer would wear gloves. They planned it - they did it. But both got small cuts, scratches whatever. She wanted to go back to the crime scene to clean the front door and the door handle. She also knew that fingerprints won't be a problem cause she had been there a week before. She also wanted to leave the country at this point. She didn't want to be confronted by her brother who was very suspicious on her! (See her testimony)
2. No time log about the 5 calls on Saturday. Haysom testified and confirmed it in an interview that she called some jewelery shops where she sold some stolen rings, watches from her mother. What does it mean? No use for money, so no use to call anybody giving her card number. Neither Beth nor Kim did confirm any call by Haysom for this Saturday! -> Logical exclusion followed by zero proof.
AND there would have been money for a more proper alibi: second ticket for Rocky Horror!
3. Soering is a liar and many parts of his confessions are bullshit. Especially the details given around the murder deeds. No corroborating evidence at the crime scene. Soering said all his blood fell in his lap. No blood on Derek's seat, only a few spots . He said there was a fight around the table and the table felt upside down. Nonsense. If he said he pulled Mrs. Haysom firmly at her wrist as a shield, the autopsie report doesn't confirm this. If he said that Mrs Haysom ran into the Kitchen to pick up a knife it is bullshit. She could use her steak knife. If he said Derek pushe him against the fire place with his head, no birthday card had dropped down. So the true version must completely different. Soering has invented a version of a single killer. In his last confession there popped a second killer out of nothing ???
4. That is a sweet story to make her more empathic or remorseful. She knew how to emotional influence the Jury playing the victim.
She was allways using an unemotional language while talking about her parents. Pups brain, a bloody poem for her mother in interviews where she was telling that here parents arguments stick like knives in your body (!!)
5. He killed her father, she killed her mother from different directions in different rooms. No happy meal of leftovers before or conversation before. No dog was hurt in that night. Maybe they have heard Psycho killer on their way back, wearing clean clothes after showering. Both were great fans of Talking heads.
Well you have the bloody shoe imprints which belong to Haysom. If Haysom's DNA would be in a beer can, in the midth (no contact to the floor) of a blood stain on the kitchen floor and it is her hair in the bath room she would have been incriminated 100%
@ FS007/008
You're getting even weaker!
Sure. Haysom and Soering had studied a ton of criminal stories before the murder weekend. If you wear gloves, you can save a lot of time in cleaning anything you had touched. And you won't forget something. Also Soering had studied Soldier & Fortune to select the proper knifes where your hands won't slip over the blade while stabbing somebody. As he joined a fencing club in his youth he knew the importance of self protection. So don't get silly and a troll accepting that Andrew can also think of gloves. It is the easiest way to prevent leaving fingerprints
But something went wrong cause of blood 0 in the master bedroom, on the screen door and on the door handle and blood B on a wash cloth. A pendant like Soering won' t forget a thing in general. They had a time slot to be back before or shortly after the Rocky Horror will end to catch up the last tickets that was thrown away. Unfortunately 2 tickets seemed to be impossible.
In fact there had been no coffie mugs that might keep fingerprints cause there consist out of foam (styropor).
On this interview event with Gardner he had also written something without gloves on. He had asked for a pen. Soering's claims that the diary entry was made to create papertrail that Soering is the single killer as his promise would be keeping her away from the crime scene is a true part. It is obvious that Haysom had to rely on such an act being in stron dependency by Soering.
But after the cops were after him, he wanted to keep them off tracing him down by his fingerprints. Logical for a murderer. But he knew that there had been no fingerprints at the scene (gloves)!
1. When she was asked to give fingerprints, she did. When Soering was asked for this, he fled the country.
2. What about the phone call from the hotel in Washington D.C in the night ?
3. Why not simply believe Soering's interviews in 1985. 4 times the same story.
4. She send him the good-bye letter after images of her parents where shown to her.
5. If Elizabeth would have been at the crime scene, i can tell you, what Soering would have said: "She killed her parents, i stood 10 meters away and couldn't do anything because i was so shocked."
and:
"Let's do a DNA retest. I'm sure, we'll find Elizabeth's DNA in a blood stain"
Lieber Jens Söring, der du hier sicherlich genau mitliest, um deine nächste Unterlassungsklage vorzubereiten, du erzählst bei jeder passenden Gelegenheit, daß du $ 1,4Mio. von Virginia bekommst, wenn die Virginianer endlich kapieren, daß du unschuldig bist.
Hier hast du nun die gratis Chance auf 1,4 Mio. indem du die DNA Tests veranlasst, die du immer wolltest (oder vielleicht doch nicht immer ...?).
Und was Meineide angeht, da bist du doch nicht immer so streng mit dir gewesen: Ich erinnere nur an das Jahr 1990, als du in den Anhörungen vor dem Hauptverfahren erklärt hast, die Geständnisse in England seien von dir unter Zwang erpresst worden und du nur ein paar Wochen später ebenfalls unter Eid vor demselben Richter (!) erklärtest, diese Geständnisse hast du als wahrer Held abgegeben um Elizabeth zu retten. Oder haben dich die bösen englischen Beamten gezwungen, Elizabeth vor der Todesstrafe zu retten, der sie nie angeklagt war ? Oder ist das jetzt ein Spin zuviel ?
Ich frage mich, wie er die ganzen Wiederaufnahmeverfahren etc. in den letzten Jahrzehnten eingeleitet hat. Da müssen doch ständig irgendwelche Erkärungen unter Eid abgegeben werden.
Die Anträge habe ich nirgendwo gefunden, aber man kann aus den Beschlüssen in etwa schliessen, was beantragt wurde. Interessant hierbei: Bis zum Schluß (das war etwa 2010, dann waren alle Rechtsmittel ausgeschöpft) scheint wieder an der Fassung festgehalten worden zu sein, daß die Geständnisse in England nicht rechtmäßig erlangt worden seien (kein Anwalt, etc.). Letztinstanzlich wurde dann auch (wie in allen Vorinstanzen) festgestellt, daß es sich bei dieser Erklärung um eine Falschaussage (unter Eid) gehandelt hat.
Gegenüber der Öffentlichkeit hielt er an der "Elizabeth-Retten" Version fest.
Hey, it's me again. Though I am really Sure, that JS is a liar and wrightly convicted murderer, there is one point, I have to agree to him: He mentioned that Nance haven't signed the petition in anyway. I took a look at the petition the podcasters posted. And He is right at that point. So, although I am still deep impressed of their work, this circumstance confuses me. As they told in the podcast, Nance gave an official statement, that he has no objection.
I assume the pdfs posted by STBC are copies of the version sent to Nance, so they are not yet signed by him. Nance explicitly confirmed in the email correspondence to Söring to have signed the petitions. Apart from that, if journalists officially state that this has happened, I believe it.
Falsch- Nance hat sie NICHT unterzeichnet. Er hat eine Unterschrift als "Seen" geleistet. Das ist so wie bei uns in Deutschland der typische "Eingangsstempel". Die Unterschrift fehlt und wenn die Podcaster eine hätten, wäre jetzt der absolut notwendige Zeitpunkt gewesen, diese mit zu veröffentlichen. Sie haben aber keine und das sagt Nance auch ganz klar.
Here we go ! Soering can get his often asked tests. Oh Dear, the show Soering produces is better then every Blockbuster I've ever watched! I need popcorn!!!
1. A smart killer would wear gloves. They planned it - they did it. But both got small cuts, scratches whatever. She wanted to go back to the crime scene to clean the front door and the door handle. She also knew that fingerprints won't be a problem cause she had been there a week before. She also wanted to leave the country at this point. She didn't want to be confronted by her brother who was very suspicious on her! (See her testimony)
2. No time log about the 5 calls on Saturday. Haysom testified and confirmed it in an interview that she called some jewelery shops where she sold some stolen rings, watches from her mother. What does it mean? No use for money, so no use to call anybody giving her card number. Neither Beth nor Kim did confirm any call by Haysom for this Saturday! -> Logical exclusion followed by zero proof.
AND there would have been money for a more proper alibi: second ticket for Rocky Horror!
3. Soering is a liar and many parts of his confessions are bullshit. Especially the details given around the murder deeds. No corroborating evidence at the crime scene. Soering said all his blood fell in his lap. No blood on his seat. He said there was a fight around the table and the table felt upside down. Nonsense. If he said he pulled Mr. Haysom firmly at her wrist as a shield, the autopsie report doesn't confirm this. If he said that Mrs Haysom ran into the Kitchen to pick up a knife it is bullshit. She could use her steak knife. If he said Derek pushe him against the fire place with his head, no birthday card had dropped down. So the true version must completely different. Soering has invented a version of a single killer. In his last confession there popped a second killer out of nothing ???
4. That is a sweet story to make her more empathic or remorseful. She knew how to emotional influence the Jury playing the victim.
She was allways using an unemotional language while talking about her parents. Pups brain, a bloody poem for her mother in interviews where she was telling that here parents arguments stick like knives in your body (!!)
5. He killed her father, she killed her mother from different directions in different rooms. No happy meal of leftovers before or conversation before. No dog was hurt in that night. Maybe they have heard Psycho killer on their way back, wearing clean clothes after showering. Both were great fans of Talking heads.
Well you have the bloody shoe imprints which belong to Haysom. If Haysom's DNA would be in a beer can, in the midth (no contact to the floor) of a blood stain on the kitchen floor and it is her hair in the bath room she would have been incriminated 100%
@ FS007/008
You're getting even weaker!
Sure. Haysom and Soering had studied a ton of criminal stories before the murder weekend. If you wear gloves, you can save a lot of time in cleaning anything you had touched. And you won't forget something. Also Soering had studied Soldier & Fortune to select the proper knifes where your hands won't slip over the blade while stabbing somebody. As he joined a fencing club in his youth he knew the importance of self protection.
But something went wrong cause of blood 0 in the master bedroom, on the screen door and on the door handle and blood B on a wash cloth. A pendant like Soering won' t forget a thing in general. They had a time slot to be back before or shortly after the Rocky Horror will end to catch up the last tickets that was thrown away. Unfortunately 2 tickets seemed to be impossible.
In fact there had been no coffie mugs that might keep fingerprints cause there consist out of foam (styropor).
On this interview event with Gardner he had also written something without gloves on. He had asked for a pen. Soering's claims that the diary entry was made to create papertrail that Soering is the single killer as his promise would be keeping her away from the crime scene is a true part. It is obvious that Haysom had to rely on such an act being in stron dependency by Soering.
But after the cops were after him, he wanted to keep them off tracing him down by his fingerprints. Logical for a murderer. But he knew that there had been no fingerprints at the scene (gloves)!
According to my information, it was just a matter of Harding and Hudson visiting Nance and asking him informally. I imagine that if there were actual paperwork, Söring would have posted it.
Just common sense: Areas near where Type O blood was found, surfaces which the assailant would likely have come into contact with *during the crime*, etc. Crime-scene protocol 101. If Söring chugged those three beers to calm his nerves during clean-up operations (wearing gloves to hide his fingerprints or wiping them from the cans afterward) and they find traces of his DNA from saliva, that would be pretty darned incriminating, since it seems rather unlikely three empty beer cans would have been left undisturbed from Söring and Haysom's visit months before the crime.
o.k. i see there are obviously interesting items to test. Sure, Soering will not agree. Is he the only person, who can trigger the testing ? What about Elizabeth or their brothers ?
Anyway: When your book comes out, Soerings fairy-tail time will be over with or without DNA.
FS007/008 bist du beim Secret Service aufgestiegen?
Haysom war doch auch da. Also keine Zustimmung! Der arrogante Söring hat aus Haysom vom Tatort fernhalten, halt das melodramatische Sidney Carton Thema in seinem Prozess drübergekippt. Pattern of behaviour. Immer noch nicht geblickt?
Don't get confused by all the smokescreens put up by Söring. The decisive consideration is how somebody would behave who is actually not guilty and was not present at the crime scene. As a matter of common sense, such person would do the utmost possible to enforce a new DNA test and I am sure he would find the right arguments to file a petition without lying about facts. So if a person does exactly the opposite, i.e. looks for arguments not to apply for a new DNA test, what is the only logical conclusion?
Falsch, ein Mensch mit gesundem Menschenverstand würde ALLES tun, um nach 33 Jahren nie wieder in den Konflikt mit der US Justiz zu kommen. Und dementsprechend keinen Meineid begehen.
Nochmal, damit es auch der letzte versteht: In dem Antrag muss man eine Argumentation führen, warum bestimmte Beweismittel für den Test geeignet sind. Dazu muss man Fakten präsentieren und diese mit einer Einschätzung verbinden. Für beides kann man Ausführungen von Experten beifügen, wie es STBC auch gemacht haben. Die Fakten müssen natürlich der Wahrheit entsprechen, ansonsten besteht das Risiko, dass man wegen einer falschen eidlichen Erklärung belangt wird. Die Einschätzung muss nachvollziehbar sein, sonst besteht das Risiko, dass das Gericht den Antrag ablehnt. Eine falsche Einschätzung erfüllt aber nicht den Tatbestand des Meineids. Der Antragsteller kann die Lage auch anders einschätzen als Nance. Solange Söring also nicht lügt (i.e. täuscht über *Tatsachen*), besteht das einzige Risiko darin, dass der Antrag abgelehnt wird (natürlich zusätzlich zu dem Risiko, dass das Ergebnis ihm nicht passt).
Genauso ist es. Gläubige Söring Jünger werden so etwas aber nie verstehen.
Schau mal was dein "Klon" 008 für einen indifferenten Unsinn zum Thema Handschuhe am Tatort loslässt.
Und du checkst aber schon, dass Söring seit Jahrzehnten in der Öffentlichkeit steht und demnach nicht einfach irgendwas vermuten kann? Weil durch Filme etc bewiesen werden kann, dass er definitiv weiß, worum es geht?!
Truthfinder, bezahlt dir Söring etwas für deine Kommentare hier ?
Nee, Hammel dir etwa? Ah, nee der dürfte sein letztes Geld dafür verwenden einer gemeinnützigen Orga zu spenden. Hat er ja schließlich versprochen ;)
Vor allem würde er den Lügendetektortest nicht mehr fürchten. Der Knaststress, der ihn bislang vor der Freilassung so nervös machte, ist ja jetzt schon länger vorbei!!
Das mit der Meldepflicht stimmt also zu hundert Prozent, ohne jeden Zweifel, weil die verliebte Annabel das sagt, ja? Die USA könnte sehr wohl einen Auslieferungsantrag stellen. Für wen haltet ihr euch eigentlich, zu fordern, dass Söring eine Straftat begeht, nur damit ihr eure Bockigkeit befriedigt bekommt?
"Die USA könnte sehr wohl einen Auslieferungsantrag stellen".
Können sie gerne tun, hätte aber keinerlei Konsequenz, denn in Art. 16 GG heißt es bekanntlich: "Kein Deutscher darf an das Ausland ausgeliefert werden".
Die habe ich schon X-Mal um Beweise gebeten. nix. Außer flappsige Antworten, wie: mit dir reden wir nicht.
Ihr seid mittlerweile so verstrahlt von dem Gedanken, die Weisheit mit Löffeln gefressen zu haben. Absolute Verschwörungstheoretiker.
Ach Truthfinder, so wirst du die Wahrheit nie finden...
Irgendwann ist Verhalten logisch. Das Phänomen Söring ist doch eh immer wieder entlastende Erklärungen für sein Verhalten zu suchen. Wenn man nicht 1:1 seine übernimmt, dann philosophiert man eigene dazu.
Viele sind auch berechtigt. Da belastende oft auf demselben Weg entstanden sind. Aber wir befinden uns an einem Punkt des endgültigen Kippmoments. Söring kann diese Leier mit den verweigerten 1.2-1.4 Mio einfach auf dem Beweisstand nicht mehr bringen. Er macht sich nur lächerlich!
Well, as I am rather convinced that both had been at the scene I have to add something substancial and correct you. The first one who had confirmed the possibility and being interested in the retesting had been Chip Harding and this was before the long break of STBC. If this had been happened based on a permission given to Harding by Soering is not known. But generally Soering's Supporter are briefed and he can get very angry if someone doesn't stick to. The reason was that based also on the investigations of STBC it came up that DNA Retesting could be senseful, while Wes Nance didn't found it that conclusive. So Harding brought the idea up that there are 200 items of evidence which are stored to the case file possible to be retested
https://dailyprogress.com/soering-adds-to-pardon-petition/article_78bc9be5-b69e-58d2-82ef-e8c0020d3ac3.html
This is a good article which backs up the Gist contradiction around 1989 to 2017. I would like to know if Nance or STBC shoot back against Soering, cause he gives no proof demanding Retesting in 2017.
You're right, claiming STBC to follow Team Haysom or Updike is ridiculous. They said, maybe they are both lying. That is the right point to start with. What I do not understand is that they are claiming that all the suspects named by Soering are exonerated. Well that is right or wrong but technically not reliable.
@FS007/FS008
It is completely wrong to investigate on the case just to proof Soerings guilt, because Haysom's alibi is anything else than waterproof!! In fact she has none! Wright is just pointing to his favourite theory which Elizabeth had destroyed logically in her own interview!
A lot of evidence points in that direction. Technically, logically forensically, logistically and based on their own admissions after they had been convicted and before. BTW from Alpha to Omega there are a lot of persons believing this. Heller, Lemley, Englade, STBC they all had doubts about the right murder version.
So if you are one of the guys claiming Soering must did the atrocities alone, cause he is such a violent, brutal, bad guy it is not a proof, instead of what you like to be the outcome. So if they did it together, and she still claims that Soering did it alone, he put it just the other way round. That is what simply had happened from 87 til 90. But she is defining it also more clearly in her own words. She wanted him to be punished in the SAME way - her statement at her trial 87. But she had an early parole, That was her deal. And in 2016 she said to Heller, that he has exactly the same guilt as herself. And not to forget that she is refering to the bloody sneaker imprints as made by her mother as Nancy had smaller shoesize as herself! Well Soering has a bigger shoesize than Haysom 🤦
@FS007/008
All are weak points.
1. A smart killer would wear gloves. They planned it - they did it. But both got small cuts, scratches whatever. She wanted to go back to the crime scene to clean the front door and the door handle. She also knew that fingerprints won't be a problem cause she had been there a week before. She also wanted to leave the country at this point. She didn't want to be confronted by her brother who was very suspicious on her! (See her testimony)
2. No time log about the 5 calls on Saturday. Haysom testified and confirmed it in an interview that she called some jewelery shops where she sold some stolen rings, watches from her mother. What does it mean? No use for money, so no use to call anybody giving her card number. Neither Beth nor Kim did confirm any call by Haysom for this Saturday! -> Logical exclusion followed by zero proof.
AND there would have been money for a more proper alibi: second ticket for Rocky Horror!
3. Soering is a liar and many parts of his confessions are bullshit. Especially the details given around the murder deeds. No corroborating evidence at the crime scene. Soering said all his blood fell in his lap. No blood on Derek's seat, only a few spots . He said there was a fight around the table and the table felt upside down. Nonsense. If he said he pulled Mrs. Haysom firmly at her wrist as a shield, the autopsie report doesn't confirm this. If he said that Mrs Haysom ran into the Kitchen to pick up a knife it is bullshit. She could use her steak knife. If he said Derek pushe him against the fire place with his head, no birthday card had dropped down. So the true version must completely different. Soering has invented a version of a single killer. In his last confession there popped a second killer out of nothing ???
4. That is a sweet story to make her more empathic or remorseful. She knew how to emotional influence the Jury playing the victim.
She was allways using an unemotional language while talking about her parents. Pups brain, a bloody poem for her mother in interviews where she was telling that here parents arguments stick like knives in your body (!!)
5. He killed her father, she killed her mother from different directions in different rooms. No happy meal of leftovers before or conversation before. No dog was hurt in that night. Maybe they have heard Psycho killer on their way back, wearing clean clothes after showering. Both were great fans of Talking heads.
Well you have the bloody shoe imprints which belong to Haysom. If Haysom's DNA would be in a beer can, in the midth (no contact to the floor) of a blood stain on the kitchen floor and it is her hair in the bath room she would have been incriminated 100%
@ FS007/008
You're getting even weaker!
Sure. Haysom and Soering had studied a ton of criminal stories before the murder weekend. If you wear gloves, you can save a lot of time in cleaning anything you had touched. And you won't forget something. Also Soering had studied Soldier & Fortune to select the proper knifes where your hands won't slip over the blade while stabbing somebody. As he joined a fencing club in his youth he knew the importance of self protection. So don't get silly and a troll accepting that Andrew can also think of gloves. It is the easiest way to prevent leaving fingerprints
But something went wrong cause of blood 0 in the master bedroom, on the screen door and on the door handle and blood B on a wash cloth. A pendant like Soering won' t forget a thing in general. They had a time slot to be back before or shortly after the Rocky Horror will end to catch up the last tickets that was thrown away. Unfortunately 2 tickets seemed to be impossible.
In fact there had been no coffie mugs that might keep fingerprints cause there consist out of foam (styropor).
On this interview event with Gardner he had also written something without gloves on. He had asked for a pen. Soering's claims that the diary entry was made to create papertrail that Soering is the single killer as his promise would be keeping her away from the crime scene is a true part. It is obvious that Haysom had to rely on such an act being in stron dependency by Soering.
But after the cops were after him, he wanted to keep them off tracing him down by his fingerprints. Logical for a murderer. But he knew that there had been no fingerprints at the scene (gloves)!
1. When she was asked to give fingerprints, she did. When Soering was asked for this, he fled the country.
2. What about the phone call from the hotel in Washington D.C in the night ?
3. Why not simply believe Soering's interviews in 1985. 4 times the same story.
4. She send him the good-bye letter after images of her parents where shown to her.
5. If Elizabeth would have been at the crime scene, i can tell you, what Soering would have said: "She killed her parents, i stood 10 meters away and couldn't do anything because i was so shocked."
and:
"Let's do a DNA retest. I'm sure, we'll find Elizabeth's DNA in a blood stain"
"Well, as I am rather convinced that both had been ad the scene."
Both ? Jens and Elizabeth ? What makes you believe this ? No one in the last 35 years came up with this crazy idea ....
Lieber Jens Söring, der du hier sicherlich genau mitliest, um deine nächste Unterlassungsklage vorzubereiten, du erzählst bei jeder passenden Gelegenheit, daß du $ 1,4Mio. von Virginia bekommst, wenn die Virginianer endlich kapieren, daß du unschuldig bist.
Hier hast du nun die gratis Chance auf 1,4 Mio. indem du die DNA Tests veranlasst, die du immer wolltest (oder vielleicht doch nicht immer ...?).
Und was Meineide angeht, da bist du doch nicht immer so streng mit dir gewesen: Ich erinnere nur an das Jahr 1990, als du in den Anhörungen vor dem Hauptverfahren erklärt hast, die Geständnisse in England seien von dir unter Zwang erpresst worden und du nur ein paar Wochen später ebenfalls unter Eid vor demselben Richter (!) erklärtest, diese Geständnisse hast du als wahrer Held abgegeben um Elizabeth zu retten. Oder haben dich die bösen englischen Beamten gezwungen, Elizabeth vor der Todesstrafe zu retten, der sie nie angeklagt war ? Oder ist das jetzt ein Spin zuviel ?
Ich frage mich, wie er die ganzen Wiederaufnahmeverfahren etc. in den letzten Jahrzehnten eingeleitet hat. Da müssen doch ständig irgendwelche Erkärungen unter Eid abgegeben werden.
Die Anträge habe ich nirgendwo gefunden, aber man kann aus den Beschlüssen in etwa schliessen, was beantragt wurde. Interessant hierbei: Bis zum Schluß (das war etwa 2010, dann waren alle Rechtsmittel ausgeschöpft) scheint wieder an der Fassung festgehalten worden zu sein, daß die Geständnisse in England nicht rechtmäßig erlangt worden seien (kein Anwalt, etc.). Letztinstanzlich wurde dann auch (wie in allen Vorinstanzen) festgestellt, daß es sich bei dieser Erklärung um eine Falschaussage (unter Eid) gehandelt hat.
Gegenüber der Öffentlichkeit hielt er an der "Elizabeth-Retten" Version fest.
Hey, it's me again. Though I am really Sure, that JS is a liar and wrightly convicted murderer, there is one point, I have to agree to him: He mentioned that Nance haven't signed the petition in anyway. I took a look at the petition the podcasters posted. And He is right at that point. So, although I am still deep impressed of their work, this circumstance confuses me. As they told in the podcast, Nance gave an official statement, that he has no objection.
I assume the pdfs posted by STBC are copies of the version sent to Nance, so they are not yet signed by him. Nance explicitly confirmed in the email correspondence to Söring to have signed the petitions. Apart from that, if journalists officially state that this has happened, I believe it.
Falsch- Nance hat sie NICHT unterzeichnet. Er hat eine Unterschrift als "Seen" geleistet. Das ist so wie bei uns in Deutschland der typische "Eingangsstempel". Die Unterschrift fehlt und wenn die Podcaster eine hätten, wäre jetzt der absolut notwendige Zeitpunkt gewesen, diese mit zu veröffentlichen. Sie haben aber keine und das sagt Nance auch ganz klar.
Auch hier hast du es nicht verstanden. Wie Nance selbst ausgeführt hat, gibt es für ihn 3 Möglichkeiten, den Antrag zu unterschreiben:
- Seen and agree (Empfehlung an das Gericht, dem Antrag stattzugeben)
- Seen and object (Empfehlung an das Gericht, den Antrag abzulehnen)
- Seen (neutral, das Gericht möge entscheiden). Nance sagt sehr klar, dass er die dritte Möglichkeit gewählt hat.
Ich kann mir vorstellen, dass er "seen and object" gewählt hätte, wenn die dargestellten Fakten falsch oder die Einschätzung völlig ungeeignet wäre.
Es ist trotzdem nichts weiter als ein Eingangsstempel. Nance hat mehrfach klar benannt, dass er den Tests nicht zustimmt.
Wie geschrieben, es geht nicht um Zustimmung, sondern Empfehlung, Ablehnung oder neutrale Kenntnisnahme. Die Entscheidung liegt beim Gericht.
Here we go ! Soering can get his often asked tests. Oh Dear, the show Soering produces is better then every Blockbuster I've ever watched! I need popcorn!!!
@FS007/008
All are weak points.
1. A smart killer would wear gloves. They planned it - they did it. But both got small cuts, scratches whatever. She wanted to go back to the crime scene to clean the front door and the door handle. She also knew that fingerprints won't be a problem cause she had been there a week before. She also wanted to leave the country at this point. She didn't want to be confronted by her brother who was very suspicious on her! (See her testimony)
2. No time log about the 5 calls on Saturday. Haysom testified and confirmed it in an interview that she called some jewelery shops where she sold some stolen rings, watches from her mother. What does it mean? No use for money, so no use to call anybody giving her card number. Neither Beth nor Kim did confirm any call by Haysom for this Saturday! -> Logical exclusion followed by zero proof.
AND there would have been money for a more proper alibi: second ticket for Rocky Horror!
3. Soering is a liar and many parts of his confessions are bullshit. Especially the details given around the murder deeds. No corroborating evidence at the crime scene. Soering said all his blood fell in his lap. No blood on his seat. He said there was a fight around the table and the table felt upside down. Nonsense. If he said he pulled Mr. Haysom firmly at her wrist as a shield, the autopsie report doesn't confirm this. If he said that Mrs Haysom ran into the Kitchen to pick up a knife it is bullshit. She could use her steak knife. If he said Derek pushe him against the fire place with his head, no birthday card had dropped down. So the true version must completely different. Soering has invented a version of a single killer. In his last confession there popped a second killer out of nothing ???
4. That is a sweet story to make her more empathic or remorseful. She knew how to emotional influence the Jury playing the victim.
She was allways using an unemotional language while talking about her parents. Pups brain, a bloody poem for her mother in interviews where she was telling that here parents arguments stick like knives in your body (!!)
5. He killed her father, she killed her mother from different directions in different rooms. No happy meal of leftovers before or conversation before. No dog was hurt in that night. Maybe they have heard Psycho killer on their way back, wearing clean clothes after showering. Both were great fans of Talking heads.
Well you have the bloody shoe imprints which belong to Haysom. If Haysom's DNA would be in a beer can, in the midth (no contact to the floor) of a blood stain on the kitchen floor and it is her hair in the bath room she would have been incriminated 100%
@ FS007/008
You're getting even weaker!
Sure. Haysom and Soering had studied a ton of criminal stories before the murder weekend. If you wear gloves, you can save a lot of time in cleaning anything you had touched. And you won't forget something. Also Soering had studied Soldier & Fortune to select the proper knifes where your hands won't slip over the blade while stabbing somebody. As he joined a fencing club in his youth he knew the importance of self protection.
But something went wrong cause of blood 0 in the master bedroom, on the screen door and on the door handle and blood B on a wash cloth. A pendant like Soering won' t forget a thing in general. They had a time slot to be back before or shortly after the Rocky Horror will end to catch up the last tickets that was thrown away. Unfortunately 2 tickets seemed to be impossible.
In fact there had been no coffie mugs that might keep fingerprints cause there consist out of foam (styropor).
On this interview event with Gardner he had also written something without gloves on. He had asked for a pen. Soering's claims that the diary entry was made to create papertrail that Soering is the single killer as his promise would be keeping her away from the crime scene is a true part. It is obvious that Haysom had to rely on such an act being in stron dependency by Soering.
But after the cops were after him, he wanted to keep them off tracing him down by his fingerprints. Logical for a murderer. But he knew that there had been no fingerprints at the scene (gloves)!
They wore gloves ??? Come on Bruno, you don't believe this yourself !
Why was Soring so keen in removing all fingerprints from his appartment ?
What about the diary entry "... the coffee mug gave him away" ?
Are there any insights about the alleged 2017 DNA test application?
According to my information, it was just a matter of Harding and Hudson visiting Nance and asking him informally. I imagine that if there were actual paperwork, Söring would have posted it.
"If the DNA test shows Söring’s DNA at relevant areas of the crime scene".
What do you consider as "relevant areas" ?
Just common sense: Areas near where Type O blood was found, surfaces which the assailant would likely have come into contact with *during the crime*, etc. Crime-scene protocol 101. If Söring chugged those three beers to calm his nerves during clean-up operations (wearing gloves to hide his fingerprints or wiping them from the cans afterward) and they find traces of his DNA from saliva, that would be pretty darned incriminating, since it seems rather unlikely three empty beer cans would have been left undisturbed from Söring and Haysom's visit months before the crime.
o.k. i see there are obviously interesting items to test. Sure, Soering will not agree. Is he the only person, who can trigger the testing ? What about Elizabeth or their brothers ?
Anyway: When your book comes out, Soerings fairy-tail time will be over with or without DNA.
Wenn Hammel dir was von Handschuhen erzählt gibt es also keine Gegenwehr. Du höriger Jünger!!! Typisch 🤦
Hammel hat mir nie etwas von Handschuhen erzählt.
FS007/008 bist du beim Secret Service aufgestiegen?
Haysom war doch auch da. Also keine Zustimmung! Der arrogante Söring hat aus Haysom vom Tatort fernhalten, halt das melodramatische Sidney Carton Thema in seinem Prozess drübergekippt. Pattern of behaviour. Immer noch nicht geblickt?
Ich konnte mich mit FS007 nicht mehr einloggen / vermutlich meine Schuld/Paßwort vergessen o.ä.).
Deshalb hat mich die Queen befördert.